The Multipolar World Order (yes, it's coming)

[Rahul]

Dear Bill, first, as this is my first posting of the new year, a happy new year to all Project Avalon forum members.
About the multipolar world, it does seem to me that for most of the 'west' (which for people in Asia is usually western Europe plus north America), multipolar has to include China and Russia. These being included because Russian was the American cold war enemy, and China is the early 21st century antithesis to westen liberal democracy.
Whether this is true or not, surely the people of the 'west' understand that especially because the subject is 'multipolar', having a western view about the multiple poles is hardly going to describe it.
Also, there's a lot to multipolarity that isn't about Russia, China, the EU and USA. India (my home country) is generally considered (by those who like to spend their time considering such things) to be one of the heavyweights of multipolarity.But is it really? In India's case, the 'multi' is only as assumption, and a rather weak one.
By the globalists and their corporate empires, India is considered to be no more than a large country with a very large middle class, all now predisposed to becoming reliable consumers.
Other large countries with large populations are the same: Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria. In which case, what is felt and experienced by tens of millions of households the world over is not participation in multipolarity but participation in choosing from a very short set of foods and goods, and then some more participation merely as a way to "keep fit".
The mammoth fraud of the last three years called covid ought to have divided any human settlement into those like them, and those like us. Unfortunately for us, it needs more, and that more is yet to be broadcast.

[Vicus]

[shaberon]

Along the way of de-dollarization, here is something I had not noticed from an article about the beginning of the Petroyuan:

It pointed to “the prospect of cheap energy”, which is “already luring western industrial businesses to China”, where Germany’s BASF’s main plant in Ludwigshafen was recently moved (as an example).



A few recently-published similar ideas from Africa:


According to him, "another world" is being built at the moment, and Africans can "breathe freely," gaining full independence from American and French influence.

Tseggai added that regardless of the West’s opinion, Eritrea will continue military and technical cooperation with Russia and underlined that his country also wishes to develop a partnership with Moscow in the sphere of mineral exploration and oil production.

Analysts underline that America is unlikely to succeed competing with China in Africa due to fundamental differences in approaches.



Those things look like the status quo for years to come. As the western system, perhaps in its death throes, does strange things, here is one from a long list of British companies taking taxpayers' money for Personal Protective Equipment during Covid response. This study *only* looks at domestic companies and does *not* consider testing kits or other materials. The concern was at first how many of the items had simply gone to "not for use". Here is the cake winner from PPE:


Most people will have never heard of Full Support, a small family-owned business based in Wellingborough, a market town in Northamptonshire. Yet its owners, Sarah Stoute, 49, a former nurse, and her husband, Richard, 52, are the recipients of easily the single biggest PPE contract of the pandemic.

They received payments for protective equipment including gloves, medical gowns and masks valued at £2 billion. The year before the pandemic, the annual cost of running Trident, Britain’s strategic nuclear deterrent, was £2.3 billion, according to House of Commons library. The couple scrambled to order consignments of PPE after receiving a “tip-off” about a deadly virus in China in late 2019. Then, they waited.

In March, as the first wave hit Britain, Full Support was directly awarded orders worth billions, but they did not need to be competed for or declared in the normal way because the company had an existing agreement with the government through which it already to supplied NHS trusts. Since then, the married couple have lived a life of luxury.

Recent purchases include: a £6.75 million home with 19,000 sq ft of space, 18 acres of landscaped gardens, lawns and two lakes; an equestrian centre to cater for Sarah’s love of horse-riding; and a £30 million villa in the Caribbean. As for the precise extent of their profits, last summer the Stoutes based their company offshore in Jersey, a tax haven. Filings at Companies House do not disclose revenue or profit.

They say that the firm and its immediate parent entity owed £7,006 in corporation tax as of last September, but do not say what they paid HMRC in total last year. What we do know, according to official data, is that their company ultimately produced 140 million items designated “do not use” by health officials. Their estimated value: £84 million.

[christian]

Posted by Mashika (here)
Why do you think Boris Yeltsin pointed the finger at Vladimir Putin to be the next president of Russia and what were the implications for modern democratic 'New Russia' when a 'democratic' leader basically skipped democracy to single-handedly select a candidate like Putin, which went against the US desires and plans for 'New Russia'?

I have no clue.

Posted by Mashika (here)
I'm asking basically because of this statement you made

If he wanted to help the Russian minority in Ukraine, he could have offered them Russian citizenship

Which when you were told he did, then you skewed it to say something meaningless like this

That's great. And then Putin ****ed up much of Ukraine and caused death and destruction beyond anything that the criminal regime in Kyiv had done

When you could have easily said "Oh, i did not know he had offered them Russian nationality and now i have read about it and i was wrong" […]

Honestly, you were wrong, why not just accept it instead of name calling? That's on your pyramid…

It's not my pyramid, it's Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. I didn't call pounamuknight anything, or please show me where I did.

Why is it meaningless to add that Putin ****ed up much of Ukraine and caused death and destruction beyond anything that the criminal regime in Kyiv had done? I think it's highly relevant to the whole situation. I honestly think it's great that Putin offered Ukrainians Russian citizenship, I didn't know that before. I think he should have left it at that, or at least he definitely should not have ****ed up Ukraine as he did.

Posted by Mashika (here)
…and to make it worse, you called Putin a murderous tyrant but you provided only a link to backup your claims?

Here's how it should have been done:

You posted a link, someone replied and say the source is not serious or valid because of xxx reasons
You provide a counter-response that shows evidence of why the source should be considered serious and valid

You did not do that. So now it puts you in a position in which it may seem like you are not well informed or have a way to backup your statements, since you chose to instead derail into a separate argument about "ad-honimem" and distance the conversation away from the main point made by pounamuknight, which is that the source is not serious and valid since it is 100% biased and directed by hate

It's a link that leads to a lot of information. pounamuknight said it's not a serious source because of its name. I think that's a weak argument as it's an "ad hominem" argument, why would it be derailment to point this out? I did respond to that argument as I mentioned that it's a detailed, lengthy article. I was hinting at content, and I think that's a better argument than saying the blog is not to be trusted because of its name.

I'm in contact with lots of Ukrainians who escaped Ukraine, it's hard not to run into them in Berlin. I have German friends who go to Ukraine on a frequent basis, providing support for the resistance against the invasion. I read quite a bit about the whole situation, I look at it from many different angles, and I understand that suffering in Ukraine is worse now than it has ever been since the US-supported revolution. But even though the current Ukrainian government is criminal/illegitimate and committed war crimes of its own, the Russian invasion dwarfs any crime that happened in the country in the previous years.

I think it's wrong to demonize Russians in general and I think it's wrong to pretend that Putin is some archvillain while Western leaders are somehow the good guys. I think they're all criminals, especially in the case of Ukraine. I think Putin's "support" for the Russian minority in Ukraine is feigned, it's really about power politics. In general, I think it's foolish to lionize any major politician today, they're all crooks. I think it's essential to realize how the current situation is used to divide people, we can see that here on this thread. I'm antagonized because I'm not pro-Putin. I think we should beware of taking the side of any politician on this issue (or in general) and rather focus on our common humanity and creating peace. I think it was wrong what the regime in Kyiv did to the Russian minority in Ukraine, and I think Putin's response to that was neither helpful nor legitimate. What is legitimate is that people who are attacked defend themselves in accordance with the principle of proportionality. It's not OK to go beyond that.

When I came to this thread, my main point was that authoritarian rulers all over the world "constitute a power cartel that might eventually turn into some globalized system, whether it's via US hegemony or via a multipolar world." Nobody responded to that, instead we're talking a lot about the Ukraine situation, I think that would belong into another thread.

[pounamuknight]

Posted by christian (here)
pounamuknight said it's not a serious source because of its name

If La Bigot is a serious source for bigots, sure

A reminder what La Russophobe (I'm not linking to it either) rabidly states that it is:

Russophobic - noun. (From Russian and other Greek φόβος - fear)

A biased, suspicious, hostile, hostile attitude towards the Russian people, Russia, Russian language, Russian culture and history, within a specific direction in ethnophobia

wikipedia

[christian]

Posted by pounamuknight (here)
A reminder what La Russophobe (I'm not linking to it either) rabidly states that it is:

Russophobic - noun. (From Russian and other Greek φόβος - fear)

A biased, suspicious, hostile, hostile attitude towards the Russian people, Russia, Russian language, Russian culture and history, within a specific direction in ethnophobia

wikipedia

I cannot find that quote anywhere on the website of La Russophobe, nor on Wikipedia. Do you have a link to the source?

For some reason, you say the quote comes from La Russophobe, yet in the quote box you add that it's from Wikipedia. I don't understand why you did that, can you explain?

The closest match that I find to the quote you shared appeared on realresearcher.com, a completely different website.

Here's what the authors of La Russophobe state about their intent and about the name of their blog:

We are a Not-for-Profit Russia blog recording the rise (and hopefully fall) of the Neo-Soviet Union. We are the #1 independent English-language Russia politics blog in the world. No independent Russia politics blog in English has close to as much daily traffic as we do, and no blog in the English language draws close to as many reader comments or links from other blogs. When you join us as a reader or contributor, you join the struggle for democracy in Russia.

We were founded in April 2006 by Kim Zigfeld, who is now the Russia correspondent for Pajamas Media and a columnist for Russia! magazine. Our blog has been linked-to by such powerful institutions of mainstream media as the Associated Press, the Moscow Times and the Washington Post, among many others.

We are team blog, the work product of many dedicated and talented people working for a common goal: To see Russia become a prosperous, democratic, contributing member of the world community — rather than the scourge, blight and nuisance that it is now.

The difference between a “russophobe” and a “russophile” is that while both “love” Russia, they define “love” differently: the “russophile” does everything he can to destroy the country, while the “russophobe” does everything he can to save it from destruction.

You never bothered to address the content of the article I linked to, instead you went on a campaign against the name of the blog, which is a low-quality argument. And while doing that, you interpreted the name of the blog in the most uncharitable way possible while ignoring the authors' actual self-description and intent.

[Ewan]

Posted by christian (here)

The difference between a “russophobe” and a “russophile” is that while both “love” Russia, they define “love” differently: the “russophile” does everything he can to destroy the country, while the “russophobe” does everything he can to save it from destruction.

That literally makes zero sense, unless it was lifted from the pages of an Aldous Huxley novel.

[christian]

Posted by Ewan (here)

Posted by christian (here)

The difference between a “russophobe” and a “russophile” is that while both “love” Russia, they define “love” differently: the “russophile” does everything he can to destroy the country, while the “russophobe” does everything he can to save it from destruction.

That literally makes zero sense, unless it was lifted from the pages of an Aldous Huxley novel.

The authors of La Russophobe want to interpret "russophobic" in a way that I would paraphrase as "critical of contemporary Russian politics and desiring to improve Russia, because they love the country and its inhabitants". I wouldn't use the word "russophobic" for that, because it's bound to alienate many readers (as we can see on this thread), but I can tolerate that the authors have chosen this odd definition of "russophobic".

[Vicus]

US ‘threatening’ Africa over ties with Russia – defense minister

Washington is concerned by a Russian cargo ship’s visit to a naval base in South Africa, an American official has told the WSJ

Relations between Washington and Pretoria have become strained after a Russian cargo ship visited South Africa’s largest naval base last month, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. The country’s defense minister said the US had been pressuring African nations over any links with Moscow, according to the outlet.

Washington is “concerned by the support the South African Armed Forces provided to the ‘Lady R’,” a senior US official told the WSJ, referring to a Russian vessel that was sanctioned in May over its alleged involvement in arms shipments for Moscow.

In early December, the ship was allowed to enter Simon’s Town navy base with its transponders turned off and freely move cargo there, the report claimed. “There is no publicly available information on the source of the containers that were loaded onto the ‘Lady R’,” the official said.

The outlet cited comments made by South African Defense Minister Thandi Modise last month regarding the visit of ‘Lady R’. She declined to reveal what cargo the ship was carrying, only saying that “whatever contents this vessel was getting were ordered long before Covid,” which emerged in late 2019.

Washington “threatens Africa, not just South Africa, of having anything that is even smelling of Russia,” Modise said, as quoted by the WSJ.

The article noted that, under the US law, Washington can place sanctions on any entity that provides services to a black-listed ship.

Darren Olivier, who heads African Defense Review consulting company, told the outlet it was plausible that the ‘Lady R’ was bringing an old order of Russian ammunition to South Africa. Moscow and Pretoria agreed a shipment of 4.5 million rounds of Russian ammunition worth around $585,000 back in 2020, he said.

As for what was loaded on the ship, Olivier pointed out that “South Africa’s defense industry does not generally produce armaments and complete systems that are used by the Russian military.” However, he said Moscow could be interested in dual-use items, including guidance systems and optics for aerial drones.

According to the senior US official, who spoke to the WSJ, the US embassy warned Pretoria in November that a sanctioned vessel was about to arrive in the country, but the South African authorities did not respond. The events surrounding ‘Lady R’ demonstrate the “difficulty” of implementing sanctions on Russia for the US and its allies, the article noted.

https://www.rt.com/news/569629-us-south-africa-modise/

[pounamuknight]

Posted by christian (here)
You never bothered to address the content of the article I linked to, instead you went on a campaign against the name of the blog

Well, I wouldn't wanna address hackneyed smears against Nelson Mandala from a site called IRacist.com either

Maybe someone with a better constitution than me can stomach La Bigot's demonization of Putin, but I ain't touching that site with a disinfected digital ten foot pole. Sorry, mate

The quote is from https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Русофобия

[Mashika]

Posted by christian (here)
I have no clue.

Welp, i had high hopes you would at least try to figure it out somehow, like reading a bit about it, doing a bit of research or asking around, but nope

If you had done that, then you would have understood how idiotic, ignorant and extremely US agenda and propaganda filled this statement is

"We are a Not-for-Profit Russia blog recording the rise (and hopefully fall) of the Neo-Soviet Union"

It's hilarously wrong and complete none-sense. And when i asked about Yeltsin i hoped you would try to understand that issue and then it would become obvious to you that calling Russia a 'Neo-Soviet Union' is just plain ignorant

But do you know what that term means and who came up with it? "Neo-Soviet?"

And "Neo-Soviet Union" has to be one of the most dumb things ever said about Russia, i don't think this person, the one who wrote that, expects or thinks people in the west can understand what the word Soviet means, or truly grasp the level of uneducated dumbness "Soviet Union" represents when used to reference current Russia

So i guess that's that

Thanks

Also, this is not a Russian blog, neither is the Moscow Times a Russian news site, these are American sites pushing American propaganda, they are not created by Russians, or get any money or resources from Russia, these are paid for with US money and have a clear agenda. But this is only possible to discern if you look at them from afar, and not from within the western bubble of exceptionalism

I hoped you would read about those things and then get a better understanding and view of this entire issue. It is kind of assumed that if you speak about these things, it is because you were interested in the problem, and when you are interested, you try to learn more, but you seem to just have said 'i don't care' and then just kept going with the stuff you already think you know

There is a reason why people like Alina Lipp, Patrick Lancaster, Eva Barlett and others completely have an opposite view of what the main western media says. It is called "Come and see", they went over there and saw, and then the reality they saw was so shocking they had to tell the world about it. And this has caused them tremendous pain and attacks from the west

What do you call it when a journalist is silenced or attacked by their own government because they said things that were true and had the evidence to back it up, but this truth was inconvenient for the western governments agenda?

Anyway, i hoped you would at least try, but it all ended with 'I have no clue". That was short lived for sure, too bad



I just have to wonder, how do you figure that you are not being lied to, or lead around, if you don't know or truly understand, at least partially, the other side?

What is your criteria to identify something as a truth, if you only know and understand one side of the story? Have you ever heard about the "5 Whys" strategy to get to the root of a problem or narrative? It could be useful if you want to find some truth around that site you posted or any related media you may be reading that goes along the same agenda. I learned it from my dad long ago, it is very useful in lots of situations, like this one. It is a Japanese technique, so not sure if this is applied much on the west, but take a quick read, you may find it useful anyway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys

A good starter point could be:

"The #1 independent English-language Russia politics blog in the world was created and its managed by Kim Zigfeld, a not Russian citizen"
Why?

This is usually a very short lived game or questions, the truth pops up very fast, i have used it before here at Avalon and in other places. Most people refuse to play it when they see inconvenient truths will be exposed and they just can't accept or face an undeniable truth

~~

If you don't have a clear understanding of both sides, you will always be easy to lie to, and if you don't try to learn more about the other side, then you are intentionally being a part of your own demise.

I could try to explain why that blog, and the Moscow Times and the other sites related and quoting/referencing each other are pure American propaganda, but i won't. It's tiresome to having to explain it again, and i did already in teh past too many times

You are helping and enabling them to lie to you

[shaberon]

Posted by christian (here)
When I came to this thread, my main point was that authoritarian rulers all over the world "constitute a power cartel that might eventually turn into some globalized system, whether it's via US hegemony or via a multipolar world." Nobody responded to that, instead we're talking a lot about the Ukraine situation, I think that would belong into another thread.

I think we all have this kind of concern, but, it's not specific enough.

The Ukraine situation is this very split. The concern as viewed by (U. N. Sec. Council) Patrushev:


"Amid the fundamental changes in the world, the corporations have one goal - to preserve the system of global exploitation. It is headed by an elite of businessmen that do not tie themselves to any states. Beneath it are the so-called developed countries and the ‘golden billion.’ And further below is the rest of humanity, contemptuously referred to as the ‘third world’," the Secretary concluded.



Or similarly by Pepe Escobar:


Straussian neo-cons placed at the top of the CIA, irrespective of their political affiliation, are livid that the “G7 of the East” – as in the BRICS+ configuration of the near future – are fast moving out of the US dollar orbit.

BRICS as “the new G7 of the East,” as defined by Pozsar, is beyond anathema – as much for Straussian neo-cons as for neoliberal.



The situation is directly called a catalyst for over a billion people in India:


...the war allowed India to take advantage of cheap oil prices, thus projecting its own rapid development, so-much-so that Washington now has no choice but to consider India as a serious global player.


Where even according to Reznikov:


“The cat is out of the bag, finally — the US is fighting in Ukraine to preserve its global hegemony. … in a sensational interview in Kiev, Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov also blurted out in the weekend that Kiev has consciously allowed itself to be used by NATO in the bloc’s wider conflict with Moscow!” This is the view from India. Only the Europeans are so gullible.



And so far we don't have any idea how dangerous is a power cartel between Russia and India pursuing their interests. We've never seen anything with the Petrodollar pushed back, or, the U. S. military de-fanged. A system is being made, more or less literally by the destruction of the old one, which, on the other hand, can be found to have had a lot of very dangerous manipulation behind it.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Mashika (here)

Posted by christian (here)
I have no clue.

Welp, i had high hopes you would at least try to figure it out somehow, like reading a bit about it, doing a bit of research or asking around, but nope

If you had done that, then you would have understood how idiotic, ignorant and extremely US agenda and propaganda filled this statement is

"We are a Not-for-Profit Russia blog recording the rise (and hopefully fall) of the Neo-Soviet Union"

It's hilarously wrong and complete none-sense. And when i asked about Yeltsin i hoped you would try to understand that issue and then it would become obvious to you that calling Russia a 'Neo-Soviet Union' is just plain ignorant

But do you know what that term means and who came up with it? "Neo-Soviet?"

And "Neo-Soviet Union" has to be one of the most dumb things ever said about Russia, i don't think this person, the one who wrote that, expects or thinks people in the west can understand what the word Soviet means, or truly grasp the level of uneducated dumbness "Soviet Union" represents when used to reference current Russia

So i guess that's that

Thanks

Also, this is not a Russian blog, neither is the Moscow Times a Russian news site, these are American sites pushing American propaganda, they are not created by Russians, or get any money or resources from Russia, these are paid for with US money and have a clear agenda. But this is only possible to discern if you look at them from afar, and not from within the western bubble of exceptionalism

I hoped you would read about those things and then get a better understanding and view of this entire issue. It is kind of assumed that if you speak about these things, it is because you were interested in the problem, and when you are interested, you try to learn more, but you seem to just have said 'i don't care' and then just kept going with the stuff you already think you know

There is a reason why people like Alina Lipp, Patrick Lancaster, Eva Barlett and others completely have an opposite view of what the main western media says. It is called "Come and see", they went over there and saw, and then the reality they saw was so shocking they had to tell the world about it. And this has caused them tremendous pain and attacks from the west

What do you call it when a journalist is silenced or attacked by their own government because they said things that were true and had the evidence to back it up, but this truth was inconvenient for the western governments agenda?

Anyway, i hoped you would at least try, but it all ended with 'I have no clue". That was short lived for sure, too bad



I just have to wonder, how do you figure that you are not being lied to, or lead around, if you don't know or truly understand, at least partially, the other side?

What is your criteria to identify something as a truth, if you only know and understand one side of the story? Have you ever heard about the "5 Whys" strategy to get to the root of a problem or narrative? It could be useful if you want to find some truth around that site you posted or any related media you may be reading that goes along the same agenda. I learned it from my dad long ago, it is very useful in lots of situations, like this one. It is a Japanese technique, so not sure if this is applied much on the west, but take a quick read, you may find it useful anyway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys

A good starter point could be:

"The #1 independent English-language Russia politics blog in the world was created and its managed by Kim Zigfeld, a not Russian citizen"
Why?

This is usually a very short lived game or questions, the truth pops up very fast, i have used it before here at Avalon and in other places. Most people refuse to play it when they see inconvenient truths will be exposed and they just can't accept or face an undeniable truth

~~

If you don't have a clear understanding of both sides, you will always be easy to lie to, and if you don't try to learn more about the other side, then you are intentionally being a part of your own demise.

I could try to explain why that blog, and the Moscow Times and the other sites related and quoting/referencing each other are pure American propaganda, but i won't. It's tiresome to having to explain it again, and i did already in the past too many times

You are helping and enabling them to lie to you

I'm immediately bumping Mashika's entire post.

Posted by Mashika
It's tiresome to having to explain it again, and i did already in the past too many times

Yes, she has. But even if it's tiresome for Masha, I'm just one of I suspect many here who enormously enjoys her fiercely intelligent posts, explained at length in not even her second language, sometimes written in the middle of the night her time from her hospital bed where she's been for 6 months now. That takes quite some dedication to at least try once more to educate just maybe a few more western-propagandized minds

And as a gentle reminder, we're talking about the Multipolar World Order here. (And yes, it IS coming. ) We do have other threads about the conflict in Ukraine, Putin, and Russophobia. The WW3? Ukraine/US vs. Donbass/Russia thread, a huge repository of information, analysis and updates, is closing in on 400 pages and 8000 posts.

That fast-moving thread is sometimes challenging to keep up with, and we all genuinely understand that. But the information there IS good. I follow it in detail every day, contributing where I feel I can, and my understanding of not only Russia but the entire modern world has been enhanced by doing so.

[Vicus]

India won’t support G7 price cap on Russian oil – analyst
The South-Asian nation won’t face EU secondary sanctions, an analyst told TASS

The chances of India backing the G7 price cap imposed on Russian oil are almost zero, as the country will prioritize its own political and economic interests, an analyst from the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) told TASS on Wednesday.

Nandan Unnikrishnan said India would not be targeted with secondary sanctions for rejecting the mechanism introduced by the EU, G7 and Australia in December. The measures target Russia’s seaborne crude, banning Western businesses from providing insurance and other services in respect of the country’s oil cargo unless it’s purchased at or below $60 per barrel.

“At the moment, prospects of India joining the oil price ceiling are almost zero,” Unnikrishnan said in an interview with the news agency.

His comments followed media reports suggesting that New Delhi could join the Russian oil price cap if crude costs go above $60 per barrel.

“India will pursue its own interests – economic, political, strategic. It is currently interested in importing cheap crude from Russia and won’t give up on this, as the nation makes big profits,” added the ORF analyst.

Unnikrishnan also noted that 85% of the Indian economy relies on the private sector, stressing that Reliance Industries, the country’s largest buyer of Russian oil, has significant assets in the US, but it has not stopped imports.

He said Indian companies would act purely in accordance with their business interests.

India, the world’s third-biggest importer of crude oil after China and the US, has been steadily increasing purchases of Russian crude over the past several months, taking advantage of discounts Moscow offered to attract buyers.

At the beginning of 2022, Russia’s share of India’s oil imports amounted to just 0.2%. By the end of last year, it had grown to nearly one million barrels per day, reaching more than 20% of the country’s oil import basket. India reportedly remained Russia’s top importer for three months in a row as of December.


https://www.rt.com/business/569681-i...oil-price-cap/

[Vicus]

Panoramic

Must avalonians don't Participate here:https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...Donbass-Russia , I know, isn't for everybody stomach...

but just to "remember": War as Politics by other Means (in this planet)
https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/cla...by-other-means

Therefor this war is dictating world politics NOW no matter what the outcome should be...

I found 2 articles very interesting but too long to post ...

there are about historic and NOW consequence's specially in world economics alliances...

1) The Plan to Carve Up Russia

https://www.sott.net/article/476187-...arve-Up-Russia

2) U.S. strategic aim: Break and dismember Russia; or maintain U.S. dollar hegemony? Or a muddled 'both'?

https://www.sott.net/article/476179-...a-muddled-both

prepare a cane of strong coffee...

[shaberon]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
But even if it's tiresome for Masha, I'm just one of I suspect many here who enormously enjoys her fiercely intelligent posts, explained at length in not even her second language, sometimes written in the middle of the night her time from her hospital bed where she's been for 6 months now. That takes quite some dedication to at least try once more to educate just maybe a few more western-propagandized minds

That's right.

And it's not just that, for instance India is one of those places that needs to look into all this with a big "warning label".

I believe that Russia, China, and Japan have a lot of people who are very nationalistic, I mean this in the sense of preserving their national heritage and culture and so forth. Other places are like this to a more or less degree. As another example of "more", South Africa just told them to buzz off:


US authorities demand that their African counterparts report details on the cargo contained on the ship, demanding a kind of “justification” for the fact that the country maintains relations with sanctioned Russian companies.

The American authorities seem connected to a belligerent logic according to which it is possible to obtain any kind of advantage through violence and blackmail. But the contemporary world goes in another direction. There is a process of transition towards geopolitical multipolarity that cannot be stopped through blackmail.

Commenting on the topic, Minister Modisa also expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which the US operates its relations with South Africa and other states on the continent. According to her, Washington “threatens Africa, not just South Africa, of having anything that is even smelling of Russia”. Indeed, the US does not seem willing to respect the sovereign foreign policy of African nations, simply ignoring the fact that there is real desire for cooperation with Russia on the part of these states.



As to the fact that American weapons simply costs more--which has made their sales look big since 2008--Hugo Dionisio says:


The answer lies in several aspects: 1) the North American military-industrial complex is private, therefore, it aims to pursue profit, the enrichment of an elite and the concentration of wealth, with the state being an instrument of this accumulation; 2) the other two have a military-industrial complex that is essentially public – not exclusively – mainly in the most sensitive areas, and is not intended to do more than fulfill its public role, i.e., to guarantee an effective national defense capable of defending the country’s sovereignty.


The big obstacle is just as Deutsche Bank was told it could not do private banking in China:


It is no accident that the two major US demands for changes in the RPC are related to the privatization of its huge (about 30% of the country’s ownership) public corporate sector (mainly banking) and the full opening of the capital accounts.



Obstacle to what? Here is a good idea from Erich Zuesse:


Two examples — Korea and Indonesia — will be documented here in order to display that America’s Cold War against communism was/is a cover-story, or deceptive cloak, for a war actually against the poor (and the political left) in all nations: in other words, a fascist war, meaning that America’s Government became fascist-imperialist as soon as World War II ended, despite FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt — America’s President throughout WW II) having been passionately anti-fascist and anti-imperialist. All of this will be explained here, and documented in the article’s links. First, however, will be explained the underlying economic mechanism employed by means of this war that’s actually against the poor, not ONLY against communists. This modern version of fascist-imperialism relies more on deception — on sophisticated propaganda — than Hitler’s did, because Hitler never pretended to advocate for democracy, whereas America does. So, here it is:

In third-world countries, where labor is non-unionized and cheap, an international corporation can supply the latest industrial machinery, to be worked by the fewest dirt-wage workers in order to undercut the prices of any merely intranational (or ‘local’) corporation while still making intranational (within-nation) profits that are vastly higher than any merely local corporations (which are competing against the multinational ones) in any country can and do; and this is the secret of billionaires (who control international corporations) by which they consequently generate vastly higher rates of return on investment than any merely local entrepreneurs possibly can. Offshoring production thus greatly increases return-on-investment for the billionaires while it drives wages down for the workers in the industrialized countries. On a global scale, it’s a war by the super-rich against the poor. In both respects (by lowering wages in industrialized countries, and prohibiting labor unions in the banana republics), the result is to cause an ever-increasing proportion of the world’s wealth to become concentrated amongst the billionaires — the people who control international corporations. From the standpoint of billionaires, it’s the system that surpasses any other. From the standpoint of the world’s poor, however, it is the worst system imaginable, because it funnels wealth from the masses to the classes (the super-rich); it impoverishes billions while pouring a bigger and bigger share of the world’s wealth into the control of the world’s mere 3,000-or-so billionaires. That’s the way the world works and ever-increasingly has worked ever since 1945.



He goes on to the horrendous things that happened in Korea, including napalm and attempted germ warfare, but as is shown, the "Unipolar Order" is mostly in the Truman Doctrine. And it really has no mask any more, Capitalism, mostly in the sense of the London School of Economics. The "poor"--who once at least were supposed to be protected from this by their monarchs--were about to have protection in Korea but:


As soon as American troops landed in September of 1945, something seemed off about the People’s Republic of Korea. Nationalisation of major industries? Free distribution of land to peasants? People’s committees? Strong labour-unions and an eight-hour work day? To the United States, this experiment in a united Korean peninsula under democratic rule whiffed of communism.


And it was great if you were around and saw the end of the Berlin Wall and the rest of the so-called Iron Curtain, because it really is true that most people in the different countries who are not under manipulation do not automatically hate each other.

I, personally, was not aware at the time to how vulnerable this made them to consumerism and the forces of NED and Liberal Democracy and so forth, but, ones who are interested in retaining their culture don't like it. Now we can say that the Truman-esque military was directly attacked by Iran and nothing came out of it. So the Elephant in the room is a Paper Tiger. Rather than a single site, Russia is attacking a huge collection of "interests".

[Mashika]

I'm on the complete opposite pole of being "American" and still i felt all wrong and uncomfortable about this, i didn't felt like laughing at all, it's offensive and disgraceful. And let's not even talk about the failed symbolism attempt, this is even worse than the Ukrainian Angel Warrior one.

Poor girl, she could not do much about it, she was used in a very shameful way. I feel this is offensive. I'm about to throw up...

There is a comment on that thread that says "Perfect metaphor for the stumbling Empire."

Also, this was classless and the arrogance portrayed is beyond cringe.

[Mashika]

Here's another thing a lot of people need to realize

Ask and wonder, what were the top/main countries in the USSR?

Answer: Russia, Ukraine and Belarus

Followed by: Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia

Where are the most conflicting zones now in post-soviet USSR territories?

If you list all of the above you win!

Why is there a specific involvement of the US/West in those countries just before they become unstable or something like the current war happens?

How odd, right? It's like if the US goes and visits, then immediately something bad happens and people die and it gets unstable and then war happens and the country 'needs help'

In general, if you have not realized, the main goal of this entire operation is to take down, destroy, burn down and completely obliterate the culture, governments, people, history and future of all the main countries that could possibly bring back the Union

This is the main goal, take them down 'preemptively' so a reunification never happens. But this goes beyond that, it is meant to take over the control of the land so all the very valuable resources can be extracted and taken away, so that the unipolar world can continue for centuries to go while the people in these parts are diminished and put to the side of history, turned into meaningless serfs that only work for cents a day and are so llimited they could never even attempt to take back their own land, as they are so weak, uneducated, lacking of will and power, they just simply accept their fate (as Banana republics)

This is obvious to me and in general 'us' on this side of the planet, but not so obvious to the western people, as they tend to see all from their own point of view where things happens 'unfortunately' and then they need to 'help' by giving jobs to the poor people.

The thought that those people would not be poor in the first place if their governments had not meddled and ensured their poverty and misery never crosses their minds

[Mashika]

I reserved this post for you, Christian, after you said 'I have no clue" when i asked

Why do you think Boris Yeltsin pointed the finger at Vladimir Putin to be the next president of Russia and what were the implications for modern democratic 'New Russia' when a 'democratic' leader basically skipped democracy to single-handedly select a candidate like Putin, which went against the US desires and plans for 'New Russia'?

Here's why, even if i hoped you would find this on your own, but since you clearly chose to just move forward and basically say you don't care to know, i'll post it myself for other people who may be interested in the short/long term, with the hope this may help understand the real situation we live in right now

I posted this on the WW3 thread, but i believe it's equally valid here as both issues are part of the same greater problem at this point in time

And Boris Yeltsin realized this was the plan and there was no plan ever to 'make Russia a friend of the US" and then he selected Putin as the next president before removing himself. This is something most people even these days don't know

He betrayed the US at the last moment, and chose Putin, who was not even in the picture as a candidate, it was prepared months and months in advance behind the backs of all the western 'partners', then he came out with it and even before elections took place Putin had already been selected and positioned as president of Russia, then he came into full power with an already developed plan to restore Russia and remove all influence from the west

You think some guy just comes up with a multi decade plan to restore a country in a month or two? Putin wasn't that guy, this was a very hard work that took lots of time, all behind the scenes and all carefully planned, and it was a multi-layered agenda, it did took decades but that was part of it all. It was like that, to prevent the situation i described above from happening, that the west would take over the lands, destroy and erase the culture and then rape the land until there was nothing left

By the time Putin took power, the US plan to decimate Russia was already going strong, poverty, drugs, and other corruption was rampant, like pedophilia and other things became very popular in 90s Russia, it took years to remove that and now the west calls this removal of corruption and cultural bizarre rotten mindset a "fight against freedom" or a clear sign of 'totalitarianism' from the Russian government

Behind all that fakery and rotten agenda, there is a truth. The west had big plans for Russia, and none of them involved a nice future for Russians, or even one at all. IT was all about the power and resources and nothing much more

And we see it now, Ukraine fell for it, Russia didn't, Ukraine is a rotten wasteland, Russia isn't, neither is Belorussia because they agreed and planned as well to not accept 'western help' the way Ukraine did

If anything, the stupidity of the US government has pushed Russia and the other post-soviet states they could not buy (coerce) into considering a reunification (Greater Russia or similar). Not a Soviet one, but a Russian Empire one

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

ETA: Also, The Ukrainian Nazi are like a 'great value' version of the real ones

The real ones, back in the west, are still around, In Canada, The US, Britain and other places that took them in and then allowed them to work their way up to the top in the countries internal power structure until they were the ones directing and controlling education, direction of the country and in general the entire agenda both internally and in foreign policy

This has been proven and it's obvious by how every Nazi infiltrated country acts in the international space, they take over and kill without any remorse, extract all money and resources they can and let the people die and become miserable and they don't look back. Why? Because those people do not belong to the master race, they are disposable and a resource to be used by "God's right" for the main goal

This is unchanged right now, we are just getting closer to the end goal, the signs are obvious, they (the Nazi) are losing patience and have decided to move on with the greater goal. But if you are not asleep you should be able to go look back some decades ago and see the world domination plan is/has been in good progress for very long, just under a different flag and concepts (The perversion of the US original/real culture goes here)

US patriots are considered evil, mentally ill, freaks and in general demonized just like Russians are demonized

There would be no need for US patriots, if those people would not realize that their culture and country is being destroyed. Otherwise they would live normal, happy lives. Why do they turn out this way? Because they notice the change and realize the purpose behind it. Just as Russians did in the mid 2000s once the western induced corruption started to be cleaned out of the country.

By definition we are the same, patriots, and demonized and treated as mentally ill/corrupt/etc people because of it

Be a serf or die, 'with us or with them'. Division is the favorite tool of fascism

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1538097

So yeah, and there's a lot of stuff as 'background' to get to this, i can say i'm disappointed that you didn't care, after coming forward with some strong statements so to speak. It winded down very fast.. Honestly!

[Denise/Dizi]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by mojo (here)
If America falls so does the rest of the free World.

But America isn't the 'Free World' any more — and neither is Canada, the EU, the UK, Australia or New Zealand. Freedom needs to come from elsewhere now.

I find it interesting that the world tends to use America as it's compass for everything.

Because I have not traveled to other countries, I wanted to ask you Bill, does the rest of the world believe that America is the most free, (if there is such a thing anymore) and most advanced nation in the world? And why do they believe this?

I am just curious if the rest of the world truly is "behind America" when it comes to personal freedoms, and such. (Meaning they wish they were more like America)... I would hope other nations have similar abilities to walk freely down their streets, work and have a personal life as most Americans have.

Of course other things are also considered, but what are the catalysts that make others see America as something "Better"? It just seems to me that if everyone loves (Or hates) America, and what it stands for, then of course the first time they get something wrong, it would also then become the first criticized...

Yes, America gets involved on the world stage in a big way, but I am asking about what you have noticed when being in other countries, and the general feel for such things, as I know you have been in many places. For the typical human when looking at America as a country.