CNN: As major powers meet in Asia, the rest of the world is pressed to pick a side
Hong Kong CNN — World leaders are converging in Phnom Penh this weekend for the first in a series of international summits in Southeast Asia over the coming week, where divisions between major powers and conflict threaten to overshadow talks.
The first stop is the Cambodian capital where leaders from across the Indo-Pacific will meet alongside a summit of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders, followed next week by a meeting of the Group of 20 (G20) leaders in Bali and of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Bangkok.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: On one side I see the Western bloc that also includes Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. On the other side I see BRICs, countries that want to join BRICs, and those who are looking at BRICs as an alternative to the West.
So which side is trending to be the dominant one in the coming years?
Personally, I think the Western bloc is on decline. And what is worse, the Western powers are not only offering nothing to the developing world, but many are beginning to see the U.S. acting predatory in its foreign policy, even against its own allies.
Case in point. The beneficiary of Russian sanctions and the de-industrialization of Europe will be the U.S.. That with Russian energy supplies now out of the picture, European companies are no longer competitive on global markets, and will need to relocate.
That is why I predict most of Germany's industrial companies, if not all of them, will now relocate to the U.S. bringing with them European jobs and investment. So when the question was asked after the attack on Nord Streams' pipeline two months ago on who benefits from this the most. There is only one answer .... the U.S..
I think this is the reason why Saudi Crown Prince Salman has made the decision to join the BRICs, and to distance himself from the U.S. and some elements of the West. And I do not blame him. He now sees BRICs as a viable alternative to do business, and more importantly, he will not need to align himself with someone who does not have a problem in blowing-up pipelines.
And I am willing to bet that he is not the only leader of a country who is seeing this.
The world is definitely being pressed to pick a side. And the trend of going away from the US and its allies is growing.
7 comments:
although from what I understand, it was Great Britain that bombed the Nordstream2 pipeline, not the USA.
India right now is trying to play both sides. They're hoping that if war comes they'll not only remain neutral but hopefully be the ones left to pick up the pieces. Whether this strategy will work.
>"He now sees BRICs as a viable alternative to do business, and more importantly, he will not need to align himself with someone who does not have a problem in blowing-up pipelines."
Going hand-in-hand with this: overland trading will take paramount importance in a world where a hostile west has curtained itself off into it's own independent sphere, forbidden from interacting with any of the "evil nations". Naval trade is too susceptible to interference from submarine harassment. Modern history has proven that any oil exporting nation not aligned with western interests will be subject to severe sanctions and harassment. The Belt & Road will be the main artery of the non-aligned bloc as it will be much harder to disrupt.
Also important is that the BRICS nations, in order to trade with you, don't care what form of government you adopt or how 'medieval' your social norms are. They don't try to (so far) force economic "reforms" on your population. This is appealing to the Saudis for obvious reasons.
WNU wrote about 6 paragraphs worth. It was 5 actual, paragraphs and some other standalone sentences. There is a lot to unpack.
The previous PM's tax cuts may have been ill conceived or at least undersold. she was there and then she gone before she got to do much of anything. But this PM I already know is a buffoon. To wit:
Rishi Sunak brings back fracking ban in first PMQs - BBC News
The energy crisis must not be too bad, if the mother frackers are still tilting at windmills.
Which bring up another point. Russia funds the environmental movement to hurt the West and as a form of hybrid warfare. That alone is reason enough to nuke Moscow.
BOTTOM LINE is if you will not frack than the energy crisis is not that bad or you are a loon.
"beginning to see the U.S. acting predatory in its foreign policy, even against its own allies."
That could be untrue, but the perception is there. It would have to be dealt with. I think the Democrats are too n love themselves to care. My perception may be wrong. What will the Democrats do besides calling me a denier, kicking me off social media or debanking me?
I do believe that Biden and people around him are venal enough, evil enough and stupid enough to do something like that. But conspiracies are hard to keep secret. Where is the proof?
I am not some high level muckety muck general like Milley, who has a vacuum seal on other's posteriors. But don't you think that over time word would seep out? That it would travel on the grape vine from general to colonel to major and so forth all the way to private? that it would the same in the State Department?
Oh about Joe being evil. I don't really think it is true. Joe is banal. Hannah Arendt wrote about the banality of evil. Joe is a go along get along guy. He is a centrist in the Democrat party no matter, if the party moves right or left.
Joe likes to diddle kids and will do whatever the people who hold his epstein tapes want him to.
Is 4:27
a) a troll?
b) an angry person?
Joe does like to sniff hair and he does like to touch. However, there is no mention of Joe Biden in regards to Jeffrey Epstein. We do have a list of liberal dinner attendee to Epstein NYC domicile on 2007 or thereabouts, Many were in media.
What we do know is that the black book has not been released.
We also know that Senator Vitter's name was released form the DC Madame's black book but no one else's name.
It has been concluded by many that if there is a sex scandal, a Republican's name will be reported, but not that of a Democrat.
So was Biden's name in Epstein's black book? Maybe. But if it was, Democrats decided they needed the office of the presidency more than they needed justice to be done.
Post a Comment