Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New Multipolar World Order

    Share

    Intrigado

    Posts : 57
    Points : 66
    Join date : 2014-04-15

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  Intrigado on Sat May 24, 2014 1:43 pm

    Hannibal Barca wrote:
    Intrigado wrote:
    Hannibal Barca wrote:I have my interpretation but I am very much interested to hear from as many Romanians as possible before saying mine.

    Well, I was hoping to be spared the humiliation but..... Embarassed Our hare-brained and spineless politicians are so pathetically grateful for America's decision to place this part of the ABM shield in Romania that this business is entirely an American one; if they decide to bring here missiles with nuclear capacity or whatever else would suit their needs, those idiots wouldn't do anything else but nod and smile. Now, of course, people endowed with a bit of sense aren't happy with this development and ask why would we need such defense system as we don't have anything to do with either Iran or North Korea, the rogue states against which it was said that is necessary to build this kind of shield. But these people are quickly silenced with a "Would you want to happen again as it did in 1940?". We have a kind of "besieged fortress" mentality and, whatever this shield means to the US, from our point of view, it means that the Americans have reasons to defend a land we cannot defend by ourselves, just as, if you allow me to say this, just as Hitler was interested to defend us because he was really defending his main source of oil. As, due to three centuries of long and ugly common history, Russia is pinpointed as the main source of danger to Romania, considering the story with the Republic of Moldova as well, many of my co-nationals and, of course, the government think that in case of something, the US would want to defend their precious shield, just as Nazi Germany guarded its precious petroleum with the utmost care. That's all.  Smile Only that, as I heard, the systems seem to be designed to be mobile; if things run amok, the US soldiers can simply load them in trucks or whatever and hit the road, leaving us mired in whatever sticky situation they brought upon our heads.  Shocked But that's not official, you can imagine.

    As for the Joe Biden thing....people here were commenting that he must have come to find his other son a well-paid job, as the caring father he is.  Smile Officially, he was asked to pass on the request for a permanent American base in the port of Constanta and probably assured that the deals with Chevron keep running smoothly. Instead, he wiped the floor with us for being corrupted oligarchs, praised some judicial institutions that are keeping alive the holy NKVD tradition and assured us the US are going to comply with the provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. I never felt so ashamed in my life.


    Thank you very much for the detailed insight!

    You're welcome. That's the recipe for Uncle Sam' success in this part of the world: cleverly nourished paranoia.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1600
    Points : 1595
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat May 24, 2014 2:40 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:how bout germany and france then? if the muricans have their way the germans and french would cancel all their deals with russia.
    A more accurate statement would be "all small/weak/irrelevant euro countries are under murica".
    In the case of Germany, from what i can see, there political elites are more than happy to follow Washington's orders, it's there business elites that are making this difficult.Rolling Eyes 

    In the case of France, who isn't completely following Washington demands in the case with the Mistral and is trying to maintain the statuesque between UOMZ and Thales, nevertheless depending on how long this crisis lasts, it will only be a matter of time before they capitulate to Washington's demands. No

    Intrigado

    Posts : 57
    Points : 66
    Join date : 2014-04-15

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  Intrigado on Sat May 24, 2014 8:30 pm

    macedonian wrote:Thanks Intrigado for that detailed opinion.
    Seems many of us eastern Europeans are in a same mess (ruled by easily bought, spineless, corrupted politicians who bow to Brussels and bend-over for Washington, completely forgetting national interests). I read a comment yesterday by a Chinese guy who basically said: Europeans have no real sovereignty, they are governed by their elites, but the real ruler in almost all European countries is the American ambassador. It's very sad, but very true.

    I guess that's why many here (yours truly included) can't wait for the 'Empire' to fall...oh that 'll be the day...

    I was under the impression that, apart from Poland, Romania, the Baltics, Moldova or Georgia who have their own historical anxieties and fears to bear, the rest of Europe should be far less sensitive to America's siren song. For example, the US wanted first to instal parts of the ABM shield in the Czech Republic but the Czechs rejected it. Moreover, most of Central and East European countries, not to mention the Western countries, have extensive trade with Russia and, as for many of them it's practically impossible to penetrate the EU market with their own products, the Russian or the ex-Soviet markets are very attractive. So why would they want to put themselves under the American jackboot? They cannot be so easily scared with the boogeyman from the East and I don't think US investments would compensate the loss of economic gains resulted from the trade with Russia.

    avatar
    macedonian

    Posts : 1073
    Points : 1102
    Join date : 2013-04-29
    Location : Skopje, Macedonia - Скопје, Македонија

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  macedonian on Sat May 24, 2014 9:32 pm

    Intrigado wrote:I was under the impression that, apart from Poland, Romania, the Baltics, Moldova or Georgia who have their own historical anxieties and fears to bear, the rest of Europe should be far less sensitive to America's siren song. For example, the US wanted first to instal parts of the ABM shield in the Czech Republic but the Czechs rejected it. Moreover, most of Central and East European countries, not to mention the Western countries, have extensive trade with Russia and, as for many of them it's practically impossible to penetrate the EU market with their own products, the Russian or the ex-Soviet markets are very attractive. So why would they want to put themselves under the American jackboot? They cannot be so easily scared with the boogeyman from the East and I don't think US investments would compensate the loss of economic gains resulted from the trade with Russia.

    Playing the "Divide Et Impera" game is what these people do for a living. And they are FAR from amateurs at it.
    Talking from personal experience here. I did some work (nothing major, but enough to get the idea) for some of the major US foundations and NGOs both here and abroad, and I'll tell you this: They REALLY know how to exploit every single difference between people! Not just the usual (ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation) but even the less obvious ones, and those that were dormant for centuries...I suspect they have a plethora of real experts ranging from Historians, Psychologists and Sociologists to Military/Intelligence analysts and field agents. Top that with locals that are easily bought for money/power/position (loads of those here) - and you get some sense of their capacity and capabilities. And they are VERY, VERY subtle! They plan one campaign after another, the former very contradictory to the next, yet they can make it sound as if it's not so. No wonder, since they have all the politicos and journalists in their pockets. That's how they make white seem black and vice versa.

    And make no mistake: these people take the American people for a ride too, they are mere "plebs" to them. It's not like they're American patriots or something, they only use the idea to attract cannon fodder for their profit.
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1009
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  mack8 on Mon May 26, 2014 1:28 am

    Intrigado wrote:
    Hannibal Barca wrote:I have my interpretation but I am very much interested to hear from as many Romanians as possible before saying mine.

    Well, I was hoping to be spared the humiliation but..... Embarassed Our hare-brained and spineless politicians are so pathetically grateful for America's decision to place this part of the ABM shield in Romania that this business is entirely an American one; if they decide to bring here missiles with nuclear capacity or whatever else would suit their needs, those idiots wouldn't do anything else but nod and smile. Now, of course, people endowed with a bit of sense aren't happy with this development and ask why would we need such defense system as we don't have anything to do with either Iran or North Korea, the rogue states against which it was said that is necessary to build this kind of shield. But these people are quickly silenced with a "Would you want to happen again as it did in 1940?". We have a kind of "besieged fortress" mentality and, whatever this shield means to the US, from our point of view, it means that the Americans have reasons to defend a land we cannot defend by ourselves, just as, if you allow me to say this, just as Hitler was interested to defend us because he was really defending his main source of oil. As, due to three centuries of long and ugly common history, Russia is pinpointed as the main source of danger to Romania, considering the story with the Republic of Moldova as well, many of my co-nationals and, of course, the government think that in case of something, the US would want to defend their precious shield, just as Nazi Germany guarded its precious petroleum with the utmost care. That's all.  Smile Only that, as I heard, the systems seem to be designed to be mobile; if things run amok, the US soldiers can simply load them in trucks or whatever and hit the road, leaving us mired in whatever sticky situation they brought upon our heads.  Shocked But that's not official, you can imagine.

    As for the Joe Biden thing....people here were commenting that he must have come to find his other son a well-paid job, as the caring father he is.  Smile Officially, he was asked to pass on the request for a permanent American base in the port of Constanta and probably assured that the deals with Chevron keep running smoothly. Instead, he wiped the floor with us for being corrupted oligarchs, praised some judicial institutions that are keeping alive the holy NKVD tradition and assured us the US are going to comply with the provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. I never felt so ashamed in my life.

    And you were jumping all over me when i was saying something not far from the gist what you just said, few weeks ago. Anyway, that's a good resume of the situation  our "lovely" country finds itself in nowadays (and a sad one too), thanks. Personally i'm now trying to avoid any romanian media/fora  as it only serves to fill me up with blood-boiling anger.

    Intrigado

    Posts : 57
    Points : 66
    Join date : 2014-04-15

    US influence in Europe

    Post  Intrigado on Mon May 26, 2014 8:49 pm

    mack8 wrote:
    Intrigado wrote:
    Hannibal Barca wrote:I have my interpretation but I am very much interested to hear from as many Romanians as possible before saying mine.

    Well, I was hoping to be spared the humiliation but..... Embarassed Our hare-brained and spineless politicians are so pathetically grateful for America's decision to place this part of the ABM shield in Romania that this business is entirely an American one; if they decide to bring here missiles with nuclear capacity or whatever else would suit their needs, those idiots wouldn't do anything else but nod and smile. Now, of course, people endowed with a bit of sense aren't happy with this development and ask why would we need such defense system as we don't have anything to do with either Iran or North Korea, the rogue states against which it was said that is necessary to build this kind of shield. But these people are quickly silenced with a "Would you want to happen again as it did in 1940?". We have a kind of "besieged fortress" mentality and, whatever this shield means to the US, from our point of view, it means that the Americans have reasons to defend a land we cannot defend by ourselves, just as, if you allow me to say this, just as Hitler was interested to defend us because he was really defending his main source of oil. As, due to three centuries of long and ugly common history, Russia is pinpointed as the main source of danger to Romania, considering the story with the Republic of Moldova as well, many of my co-nationals and, of course, the government think that in case of something, the US would want to defend their precious shield, just as Nazi Germany guarded its precious petroleum with the utmost care. That's all.  Smile Only that, as I heard, the systems seem to be designed to be mobile; if things run amok, the US soldiers can simply load them in trucks or whatever and hit the road, leaving us mired in whatever sticky situation they brought upon our heads.  Shocked But that's not official, you can imagine.

    As for the Joe Biden thing....people here were commenting that he must have come to find his other son a well-paid job, as the caring father he is.  Smile Officially, he was asked to pass on the request for a permanent American base in the port of Constanta and probably assured that the deals with Chevron keep running smoothly. Instead, he wiped the floor with us for being corrupted oligarchs, praised some judicial institutions that are keeping alive the holy NKVD tradition and assured us the US are going to comply with the provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. I never felt so ashamed in my life.

    And you were jumping all over me when i was saying something not far from the gist what you just said, few weeks ago. Anyway, that's a good resume of the situation  our "lovely" country finds itself in nowadays (and a sad one too), thanks. Personally i'm now trying to avoid any romanian media/fora  as it only serves to fill me up with blood-boiling anger.

    Ah, Mack. What can I say today after just learning that the accursed bastards I intended to vote yesterday with the purpose of strengthening the ALDE group, for which I have a lot of sympathy, took my vote and gave them to the Populars whom I hate with all my heart? I'm left speechless. I cannot even find words to describe how I feel for those who spat me in my face. cry
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 815
    Points : 1307
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Write-down of two-thirds of US shale oil explodes fracking myth

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:17 pm

    If you need gas please ask to Russia, if you need oil please ask to Russia, Venezuela, or Gulf states.

    The true and ultimate revenge of Russia. Mwahahahahahahaha           

    Shale gas and oil           sniper 




    Write-down of two-thirds of US shale oil explodes fracking myth
    Industry's over-inflated reserve estimates are unravelling, and with it the 'American dream' of oil independence



    Next month, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) will publish a new estimate of US shale deposits set to deal a death-blow to industry hype about a new golden era of US energy independence by fracking unconventional oil and gas.

    EIA officials told the Los Angeles Times that previous estimates of recoverable oil in the Monterey shale reserves in California of about 15.4 billion barrels were vastly overstated. The revised estimate, they said, will slash this amount by 96% to a puny 600 million barrels of oil.

    The Monterey formation, previously believed to contain more than double the amount of oil estimated at the Bakken shale in North Dakota, and five times larger than the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas, was slated to add up to 2.8 million jobs by 2020 and boost government tax revenues by $24.6 billion a year.

    Industry lobbyists have for long highlighted the Monterey shale reserves as the big game-changer for US oil and gas production. Nick Grealy, who runs the consultancy No Hot Air which is funded by "gas and associated companies", and includes the UK's most high-profile shale gas fracker Cuadrilla among its clients, predicted last year that:

       "... the star of the North American show is barely on most people's radar screens. California shale will... reinvigorate the Golden State's economy over the next two to three years."

    This sort of hype triggered "a speculation boom among oil companies" according to the LA Times. The EIA's original survey for the US Department of Energy published in 2011 had been contracted out to Intek Inc. That report found that the Monterey shale constituted "64 percent of the total shale oil resources" in the US.

    The EIA's revised estimate was based partly on analysis of actual output from wells where new fracking techniques had been applied. According to EIA petroleum analyst John Staub:

       "From the information we've been able to gather, we've not seen evidence that oil extraction in this area is very productive using techniques like fracking... Our oil production estimates combined with a dearth of knowledge about geological differences among the oil fields led to erroneous predictions and estimates."

    The Intek Inc study for the EIA had relied largely on oil industry claims, rather than proper data. Hitesh Mohan, who authored the Intek study for the EIA, reportedly conceded that "his figures were derived from technical reports and presentations from oil companies, including Occidental Petroleum, which owns the lion's share of oil leases in the Monterey Shale, at 1.6 million acres." Mohan had even lifted his original estimate for the EIA to 17 billion barrels.

    Geoscientist David Hughes, who worked for the Geological Survey of Canada for 32 years, said:

       "The oil had always been a statistical fantasy. Left out of all the hoopla was the fact that the EIA's estimate was little more than a back-of-the-envelope calculation."

    Last year, the Post Carbon Institute (PCI) published Hughes' study, Drilling California: A Reality Check on the Monterey Shale, which conducted an empirical analysis of oil production data using a widely used industry database also relied on by the EIA. The report concluded that the original EIA estimate was "highly overstated," and unlikely to lead to a "statewide economic boom.... California should consider its economic and energy future in the absence of an oil production boom."

    A spokesman for the Institute, Tod Brilliant, told me:

       "Given the incredible difference between initial projections of 15 billion barrels and revisions to 600 million, does this not call into account all such global projections for tight oil?"

    As I'd reported earlier in June last year, a wider PCI study by Hughes had come to similar conclusions about bullish estimates of US shale oil and gas potential, concluding that "light tight oil production in the USA will peak between 2015 and 2017, followed by a steep decline", while shale gas production would likely peak next year. In that post, I'd pointed out previous well-documented, and alarmingly common, cases of industry over-estimates of reserve sizes which later had been questioned.

    Analysts like Jeremy Leggett have said, citing exaggerated oil industry estimates, that if reserve and production reality are indeed significantly lower than industry forecasts, we could be at risk of an oil shock as early as within the next five years.

    The latest revelations follow a spate of bad news for industry reassurances about the fracking boom. New research published this month has found that measured methane leaks from fracking operations were three times larger than forecasted. The US Environment Protection Agency therefore "significantly underestimates" methane emissions from fracking, by as much as a 100 to a 1,000 times according to a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study published in April.

    The Associated Press also reported, citing a Government Accountability Office investigation, that the US Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management had failed to adequately inspect thousands of oil and gas wells that are potentially high risk for water and environmental damage.

    Despite the mounting evidence that the shale gas boom is heading for a bust, both economically and environmentally, both governments and industry are together pouring their eggs into a rather flimsy basket.

    According to a secret trade memo obtained by the Huffington Post, the Obama administration and the European Union are pushing ahead with efforts to "expand US fracking, offshore oil drilling and natural gas exploration", as well as exports to the EU, under the prospective Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement.

    Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. He is the author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It, and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, Zero Point. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @nafeezahmed.



    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/22/two-thirds-write-down-us-shale-oil-gas-explodes-fracking-myth

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/21/shale-gas-peak-oil-economic-crisis
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7113
    Points : 7385
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Aug 02, 2014 7:19 am

    India Slams US Global Hegemony By Scuttling Global Trade Deal, Puts Future Of WTO In Doubt

    Yesterday we reported that with the Russia-China axis firmly secured, the scramble was on to assure the alliance of that last, and critical, Eurasian powerhouse: India. It was here that Russia had taken the first symbolic step when earlier in the week its central bank announced it had started negotiations to use national currencies in settlements, a process which would culminate with the elimination of the US currency from bilateral settlements.

    Russia was not the first nation to assess the key significance of India in concluding perhaps the most important geopolitical axis of the 21st century - we reported that Japan, scrambling to find a natural counterbalance to China with which its relations have regressed back to World War II levels, was also hot and heavy in courting India. “The Japanese are facing huge political problems in China,” said Kondapalli in a phone interview. “So Japanese companies are now looking to shift to other countries. They’re looking at India.”

    Of course, for India the problem with a Japanese alliance is that it would also by implication involve the US, the country which has become insolvent and demographically imploding Japan's backer of last and only resort, and thus burn its bridges with both Russia and China. A question emerged: would India embrace the US/Japan axis while foregoing its natural Developing Market, and BRICS, allies, Russia and China.

    We now have a clear answer and it is a resounding no, because in what was the latest slap on the face of now crashing on all sides US global hegemony, earlier today India refused to sign a critical global trade dea. Specifically, India's unresolved demands led to the collapse of the first major global trade reform pact in two decades. WTO ministers had already agreed the global reform of customs procedures known as "trade facilitation" in Bali, Indonesia, last December, but were unable to overcome last minute Indian objections and get it into the WTO rule book by a July 31 deadline.

    WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo told trade diplomats in Geneva, just two hours before the final deadline for a deal lapsed at midnight that "we have not been able to find a solution that would allow us to bridge that gap."

    Reuters reports that most diplomats had expected the pact to be rubber-stamped this week, marking a unique success in the WTO's 19-year history which, according to some estimates, would add $1 trillion and 21 million jobs to the world economy.

    Turns out India was happy to disappoint the globalists: the diplomats were shocked when India unveiled its veto and the eleventh-hour failure drew strong criticism, as well as rumblings about the future of the organisation and the multilateral system it underpins.

    "Australia is deeply disappointed that it has not been possible to meet the deadline. This failure is a great blow to the confidence revived in Bali that the WTO can deliver negotiated outcomes," Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb said on Friday. "There are no winners from this outcome – least of all those in developing countries which would see the biggest gains."
    Shockingly, and without any warning, India's stubborn refusal to comply with US demands, may have crushed the WTO as a conduit for international trade, and landed a knockout punch when it comes to future relentless globallization which as is well known over the past 50 or so years, has benefited the US first and foremost.

    Broke, debt-monetizing Japan, which as noted previously, was eager to become BFFs with India was amazed by the rebuttal: "A Japanese official familiar with the situation said that while Tokyo reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining and strengthening the multilateral trade system, it was frustrated that such a small group of countries had stymied the overwhelming consensus. "The future of the Doha Round including the Bali package is unclear at this stage," he said."

    Others went as far as suggesting the expulsion of India:

    Some nations, including the United States, the European Union, Australia, Japan and Norway, have already discussed a plan to exclude India from the agreement and push ahead, officials involved in the talks said.
    However, such a move would clearly be an indication that the great globalization experiment is coming to an end: "New Zealand Minister of Overseas Trade, Tim Groser, told Reuters there had been "too much drama" surrounding the negotiations and added that any talk of excluding India was "naive" and counterproductive. "India is the second biggest country by population, a vital part of the world economy and will become even more important. The idea of excluding India is ridiculous." ... "I don't want to be too critical of the Indians. We have to try and pull this together and at the end of the day putting India into a box would not be productive," he added.

    And yes, the death of the WTO is already being casually tossed around as a distinct possibility:

    Still, the failure of the agreement should signal a move away from monolithic single undertaking agreements that have defined the body for decades, Peter Gallagher, an expert on free trade and the WTO at the University of Adelaide, told Reuters.

    "I think it's certainly premature to speak about the death of the WTO. I hope we've got to the point where a little bit more realism is going to enter into the negotiating procedures," he said.
    But the one country that was most traumatized, was the one that has never before been used to getting a no answer by some "dingy developing world backwater": the United States, and the person most humiliated, who else but John Kerry.

    "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday that India's refusal to sign a global trade deal sent the wrong signal, and he urged New Delhi to work to resolve the row as soon as possible." "Failure to sign the Trade Facilitation Agreement sent a confusing signal and undermined the very image Prime Minister Modi is trying to send about India," a U.S. State Department official told reporters after Kerry's meeting with Modi.

    Wrong signal for John Kerry perhaps, who is now beyond the world's "diplomatic" laughing stock and the man who together with Hillary Clinton (and the US president) has made a complete mockery of US global influence in the past 5 years. But just the right signal for China and of course, Russia.

    This is very interesting news. China was originally not gonna sign it and so WTO headed by US was expecting India to sign it, but India has now refused to. To add fuel to the fire, US is now looking to bypass India in the WTO and hope to push the agreement anyway and thus undermining India's position in the WTO making the whole thing pointless (was pointless for Russia).

    US is sure making a whole lot of friends... Go figure, only friends they can actually make are failed post soviet nations who rely on US for military purposes.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4469
    Points : 4628
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:42 pm

    sepheronx wrote:India Slams US Global Hegemony By Scuttling Global Trade Deal, Puts Future Of WTO In Doubt

    Yesterday we reported that with the Russia-China axis firmly secured, the scramble was on to assure the alliance of that last, and critical, Eurasian powerhouse: India. It was here that Russia had taken the first symbolic step when earlier in the week its central bank announced it had started negotiations to use national currencies in settlements, a process which would culminate with the elimination of the US currency from bilateral settlements.

    Russia was not the first nation to assess the key significance of India in concluding perhaps the most important geopolitical axis of the 21st century - we reported that Japan, scrambling to find a natural counterbalance to China with which its relations have regressed back to World War II levels, was also hot and heavy in courting India. “The Japanese are facing huge political problems in China,” said Kondapalli in a phone interview. “So Japanese companies are now looking to shift to other countries. They’re looking at India.”

    Of course, for India the problem with a Japanese alliance is that it would also by implication involve the US, the country which has become insolvent and demographically imploding Japan's backer of last and only resort, and thus burn its bridges with both Russia and China. A question emerged: would India embrace the US/Japan axis while foregoing its natural Developing Market, and BRICS, allies, Russia and China.

    We now have a clear answer and it is a resounding no, because in what was the latest slap on the face of now crashing on all sides US global hegemony, earlier today India refused to sign a critical global trade dea. Specifically, India's unresolved demands led to the collapse of the first major global trade reform pact in two decades. WTO ministers had already agreed the global reform of customs procedures known as "trade facilitation" in Bali, Indonesia, last December, but were unable to overcome last minute Indian objections and get it into the WTO rule book by a July 31 deadline.

    WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo told trade diplomats in Geneva, just two hours before the final deadline for a deal lapsed at midnight that "we have not been able to find a solution that would allow us to bridge that gap."

    Reuters reports that most diplomats had expected the pact to be rubber-stamped this week, marking a unique success in the WTO's 19-year history which, according to some estimates, would add $1 trillion and 21 million jobs to the world economy.

    Turns out India was happy to disappoint the globalists: the diplomats were shocked when India unveiled its veto and the eleventh-hour failure drew strong criticism, as well as rumblings about the future of the organisation and the multilateral system it underpins.

    "Australia is deeply disappointed that it has not been possible to meet the deadline. This failure is a great blow to the confidence revived in Bali that the WTO can deliver negotiated outcomes," Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb said on Friday. "There are no winners from this outcome – least of all those in developing countries which would see the biggest gains."
    Shockingly, and without any warning, India's stubborn refusal to comply with US demands, may have crushed the WTO as a conduit for international trade, and landed a knockout punch when it comes to future relentless globallization which as is well known over the past 50 or so years, has benefited the US first and foremost.

    Broke, debt-monetizing Japan, which as noted previously, was eager to become BFFs with India was amazed by the rebuttal: "A Japanese official familiar with the situation said that while Tokyo reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining and strengthening the multilateral trade system, it was frustrated that such a small group of countries had stymied the overwhelming consensus. "The future of the Doha Round including the Bali package is unclear at this stage," he said."

    Others went as far as suggesting the expulsion of India:

    Some nations, including the United States, the European Union, Australia, Japan and Norway, have already discussed a plan to exclude India from the agreement and push ahead, officials involved in the talks said.
    However, such a move would clearly be an indication that the great globalization experiment is coming to an end: "New Zealand Minister of Overseas Trade, Tim Groser, told Reuters there had been "too much drama" surrounding the negotiations and added that any talk of excluding India was "naive" and counterproductive. "India is the second biggest country by population, a vital part of the world economy and will become even more important. The idea of excluding India is ridiculous." ... "I don't want to be too critical of the Indians. We have to try and pull this together and at the end of the day putting India into a box would not be productive," he added.

    And yes, the death of the WTO is already being casually tossed around as a distinct possibility:

    Still, the failure of the agreement should signal a move away from monolithic single undertaking agreements that have defined the body for decades, Peter Gallagher, an expert on free trade and the WTO at the University of Adelaide, told Reuters.

    "I think it's certainly premature to speak about the death of the WTO. I hope we've got to the point where a little bit more realism is going to enter into the negotiating procedures," he said.
    But the one country that was most traumatized, was the one that has never before been used to getting a no answer by some "dingy developing world backwater": the United States, and the person most humiliated, who else but John Kerry.

    "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday that India's refusal to sign a global trade deal sent the wrong signal, and he urged New Delhi to work to resolve the row as soon as possible." "Failure to sign the Trade Facilitation Agreement sent a confusing signal and undermined the very image Prime Minister Modi is trying to send about India," a U.S. State Department official told reporters after Kerry's meeting with Modi.

    Wrong signal for John Kerry perhaps, who is now beyond the world's "diplomatic" laughing stock and the man who together with Hillary Clinton (and the US president) has made a complete mockery of US global influence in the past 5 years. But just the right signal for China and of course, Russia.

    This is very interesting news.  China was originally not gonna sign it and so WTO headed by US was expecting India to sign it, but India has now refused to.  To add fuel to the fire, US is now looking to bypass India in the WTO and hope to push the agreement anyway and thus undermining India's position in the WTO making the whole thing pointless (was pointless for Russia).

    US is sure making a whole lot of friends...  Go figure, only friends they can actually make are failed post soviet nations who rely on US for military purposes.

    Time to see the fall and death of the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the WTF...in that order. Wink
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3317
    Points : 3401
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  medo on Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:31 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:India Slams US Global Hegemony By Scuttling Global Trade Deal, Puts Future Of WTO In Doubt

    Yesterday we reported that with the Russia-China axis firmly secured, the scramble was on to assure the alliance of that last, and critical, Eurasian powerhouse: India. It was here that Russia had taken the first symbolic step when earlier in the week its central bank announced it had started negotiations to use national currencies in settlements, a process which would culminate with the elimination of the US currency from bilateral settlements.

    Russia was not the first nation to assess the key significance of India in concluding perhaps the most important geopolitical axis of the 21st century - we reported that Japan, scrambling to find a natural counterbalance to China with which its relations have regressed back to World War II levels, was also hot and heavy in courting India. “The Japanese are facing huge political problems in China,” said Kondapalli in a phone interview. “So Japanese companies are now looking to shift to other countries. They’re looking at India.”

    Of course, for India the problem with a Japanese alliance is that it would also by implication involve the US, the country which has become insolvent and demographically imploding Japan's backer of last and only resort, and thus burn its bridges with both Russia and China. A question emerged: would India embrace the US/Japan axis while foregoing its natural Developing Market, and BRICS, allies, Russia and China.

    We now have a clear answer and it is a resounding no, because in what was the latest slap on the face of now crashing on all sides US global hegemony, earlier today India refused to sign a critical global trade dea. Specifically, India's unresolved demands led to the collapse of the first major global trade reform pact in two decades. WTO ministers had already agreed the global reform of customs procedures known as "trade facilitation" in Bali, Indonesia, last December, but were unable to overcome last minute Indian objections and get it into the WTO rule book by a July 31 deadline.

    WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo told trade diplomats in Geneva, just two hours before the final deadline for a deal lapsed at midnight that "we have not been able to find a solution that would allow us to bridge that gap."

    Reuters reports that most diplomats had expected the pact to be rubber-stamped this week, marking a unique success in the WTO's 19-year history which, according to some estimates, would add $1 trillion and 21 million jobs to the world economy.

    Turns out India was happy to disappoint the globalists: the diplomats were shocked when India unveiled its veto and the eleventh-hour failure drew strong criticism, as well as rumblings about the future of the organisation and the multilateral system it underpins.

    "Australia is deeply disappointed that it has not been possible to meet the deadline. This failure is a great blow to the confidence revived in Bali that the WTO can deliver negotiated outcomes," Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb said on Friday. "There are no winners from this outcome – least of all those in developing countries which would see the biggest gains."
    Shockingly, and without any warning, India's stubborn refusal to comply with US demands, may have crushed the WTO as a conduit for international trade, and landed a knockout punch when it comes to future relentless globallization which as is well known over the past 50 or so years, has benefited the US first and foremost.

    Broke, debt-monetizing Japan, which as noted previously, was eager to become BFFs with India was amazed by the rebuttal: "A Japanese official familiar with the situation said that while Tokyo reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining and strengthening the multilateral trade system, it was frustrated that such a small group of countries had stymied the overwhelming consensus. "The future of the Doha Round including the Bali package is unclear at this stage," he said."

    Others went as far as suggesting the expulsion of India:

    Some nations, including the United States, the European Union, Australia, Japan and Norway, have already discussed a plan to exclude India from the agreement and push ahead, officials involved in the talks said.
    However, such a move would clearly be an indication that the great globalization experiment is coming to an end: "New Zealand Minister of Overseas Trade, Tim Groser, told Reuters there had been "too much drama" surrounding the negotiations and added that any talk of excluding India was "naive" and counterproductive. "India is the second biggest country by population, a vital part of the world economy and will become even more important. The idea of excluding India is ridiculous." ... "I don't want to be too critical of the Indians. We have to try and pull this together and at the end of the day putting India into a box would not be productive," he added.

    And yes, the death of the WTO is already being casually tossed around as a distinct possibility:

    Still, the failure of the agreement should signal a move away from monolithic single undertaking agreements that have defined the body for decades, Peter Gallagher, an expert on free trade and the WTO at the University of Adelaide, told Reuters.

    "I think it's certainly premature to speak about the death of the WTO. I hope we've got to the point where a little bit more realism is going to enter into the negotiating procedures," he said.
    But the one country that was most traumatized, was the one that has never before been used to getting a no answer by some "dingy developing world backwater": the United States, and the person most humiliated, who else but John Kerry.

    "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday that India's refusal to sign a global trade deal sent the wrong signal, and he urged New Delhi to work to resolve the row as soon as possible." "Failure to sign the Trade Facilitation Agreement sent a confusing signal and undermined the very image Prime Minister Modi is trying to send about India," a U.S. State Department official told reporters after Kerry's meeting with Modi.

    Wrong signal for John Kerry perhaps, who is now beyond the world's "diplomatic" laughing stock and the man who together with Hillary Clinton (and the US president) has made a complete mockery of US global influence in the past 5 years. But just the right signal for China and of course, Russia.

    This is very interesting news.  China was originally not gonna sign it and so WTO headed by US was expecting India to sign it, but India has now refused to.  To add fuel to the fire, US is now looking to bypass India in the WTO and hope to push the agreement anyway and thus undermining India's position in the WTO making the whole thing pointless (was pointless for Russia).

    US is sure making a whole lot of friends...  Go figure, only friends they can actually make are failed post soviet nations who rely on US for military purposes.

    Time to see the fall and death of the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the WTF...in that order. Wink

    US in cold war with Russia, China and India. It seems BRICS will become a real alliance, political, economical and probably also military to counter US global imperialism.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:21 am

    US in cold war with Russia, China and India. It seems BRICS will become a real alliance, political, economical and probably also military to counter US global imperialism.


    I rather suspect it will remain economic... there is no shared ideology to push... NATO has US hegemony to spread, but BRI2CSA (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, South Africa, and Argentina.) does not.
    avatar
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1251
    Points : 1265
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:51 am

    You think so...
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4469
    Points : 4628
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Aug 03, 2014 2:09 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    US in cold war with Russia, China and India. It seems BRICS will become a real alliance, political, economical and probably also military to counter US global imperialism.


    I rather suspect it will remain economic... there is no shared ideology to push... NATO has US hegemony to spread, but BRI2CSA (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, South Africa,  and Argentina.) does not.

    The world doesn't work like that, the term 'Political Economy', is a indication that politics drives economics and economics drives politics, which has always been true since antiquity. The sanctions on Russia are just as political as they are economic. The term "Washington Consensus" is the merger of the U.S. economic (IMF, World Bank, Wallstreet) and political (Congress, White House, Supreme Court and judicial system) interests spread around the world.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:15 am

    The world doesn't work like that, the term 'Political Economy',

    You are right, the world doesn't work like that... but I really don't see Putin getting together with a group of other nations with the goal of replacing western domination with their own type of domination.

    They don't want to be the king, they want to remove all kings from power and create something a bit more humaine and democratic.

    Kings don't give up power easily however... Sad Sometimes the method needed is the same as that used against Dragons...
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5569
    Points : 5581
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  TR1 on Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:36 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The world doesn't work like that, the term 'Political Economy',

    You are right, the world doesn't work like that... but I really don't see Putin getting together with a group of other nations with the goal of replacing western domination with their own type of domination.

    They don't want to be the king, they want to remove all kings from power and create something a bit more humaine and democratic.

    Kings don't give up power easily however...  Sad  Sometimes the method needed is the same as that used against Dragons...

    Putin...wants to create something humane and DEMOCRATIC?

    Oh my sides.....
    avatar
    Flyingdutchman

    Posts : 535
    Points : 551
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Tue Aug 05, 2014 12:33 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]


    Kings don't give up power easily however...  Sad  Sometimes the method needed is the same as that used against Dragons...

    You mean fight them?

    And who do you mean with 'kings'?
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4469
    Points : 4628
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Aug 05, 2014 12:41 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    The world doesn't work like that, the term 'Political Economy',

    You are right, the world doesn't work like that... but I really don't see Putin getting together with a group of other nations with the goal of replacing western domination with their own type of domination.

    They don't want to be the king, they want to remove all kings from power and create something a bit more humaine and democratic.

    Kings don't give up power easily however...  Sad  Sometimes the method needed is the same as that used against Dragons...

    Putin...wants to create something humane and DEMOCRATIC?

    Oh my sides.....

    Putin aside...is there people who actually equate democracy with being humane? Ancient Greece's democracy coincided with slavery, in the United States democracy coincided with slavery for nearly a century and it took a massive civil war to get rid of it (slavery), and now the descendants of those slaves are fighting the Supreme Court to maintain their voting rights. In the Wiemar Republic the National Socialist party won seats democratically by pandering and appealing to extreme bigoted and xenophobic people...so in no way is democracy a guarantee of human rights.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    India Slams US Global Hegemony By Scuttling Global Trade Deal, Puts Future Of WTO In Doubt

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:04 pm

    DemocraZy is a systeme used to be abused. You have never seen anywere real democracy, because real democracy means every single citizen of a country has the right to decide on every single decision and that is called Referendum. The West hates democracy but they love democraZy, since that creates only an illusion for people.

    Nobody that is old enough can say that they truelly believe in this representative democraZy bullshit. Everyone here knows that they are lied to in advance but vote for scum politicians anyway and then they react like it is a total suprise when they break their promisses. This representative democrazy crap is a system that buys their votes with crappy speeches. That is a prostution of democracy and has nothing to do with real democracy.

    And for everyone living today in the 21th century such words as Freedom is equaled with Enslavery to western banks and western slave style, Democracy is equaled to War and oppression then you have understood how the 20/21th century of western politics works.

    Judge a man by his doings not by his speeches. And we only see War and Enslavery from those who talk alot about democracy and freedom.

    When it comes to human rights and democracy we can see that those two things are even lower than dictatorships and human rights.

    All those dictators set up by the west and later "removed" committed far less human rights violations, genocides and enslavery then the so called democratic and free west.
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 815
    Points : 1307
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Polish president warns Germany of Putin's 'empire' ambitions

    Post  nemrod on Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:02 pm


    The second world war was triggered because of Poland, and not because of Hitler as we were taught. Many polish leaders behaves likes commited cowards for US empire interrests.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/30/us-ukraine-crisis-poland-germany-idUSKBN0GU0AO20140830

    Indeed, what does it mean russian's empire inside the little heads of polish leaders ?
    Russia wants to open a new space of partnerships -economic, polictic, and more threatening for US, cultural fields- between -the ex-CIS states- Khazakstan, Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Armenia, Bielorussia, and next Georgia. As they share common interrests, common culture, common neighborhood, it is natural to have good relations between them. Furthermore, it is absolutly revolutionar, because muslims and christians are living in peace.

    The problem for US, this trade between them is not in dollar. Moreover, China and Russia are trading in non dollar currency, for that reason US is enraged. No use to tell more about the US real empire. Furthermore, when US coalition attacked or invaded soveireign states like Iraq, Serbia, Libya they trampled UN resolutions, and they slaughtered millions of inoncent civilians with chemical bombs, depleted uranium. They fed up with all human values.

    Concerning Europ, after all, European Union is enlarging more than never, for all that is it an european empire ? Then, why is Russia's parnerships called an empire ? Because of no compliance to US will ?
    The first rogue state in the world has all rights, meanwhile the others will have to comply, else.....
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2120
    Points : 2213
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:58 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    Concerning Europ, after all, European Union is enlarging more than never, for all that is it an european empire ? Then, why is Russia's parnerships called an empire ? Because of no compliance to US will ?
    The first rogue state in the world has all rights, meanwhile the others will have to comply, else.....

    It is a habit for people to use the label "empire" for something extremely big, economically and militarily powerful, and is rapidly expanding its influence to the neighboring regions.

    Using that kind of labelling we have an U.S. empire, a China empire, and a Russian empire. EU is more difficult to be labelled because it does not have a strong continental centralized government there are many internal conflicts and disagreements. In the future we probably will have a NATO empire and an Eurasia (Russia + India + China + etc.) empire.

    The funny thing in this story is that no one in the list calls itself an empire. But all of them accused each others as "empires".
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:36 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    nemrod wrote:
    Concerning Europ, after all, European Union is enlarging more than never, for all that is it an european empire ? Then, why is Russia's parnerships called an empire ? Because of no compliance to US will ?
    The first rogue state in the world has all rights, meanwhile the others will have to comply, else.....

    It is a habit for people to use the label "empire" for something extremely big, economically and militarily powerful, and is rapidly expanding its influence to the neighboring regions.

    Using that kind of labelling we have an U.S. empire, a China empire, and a Russian empire. EU is more difficult to be labelled because it does not have a strong continental centralized government there are many internal conflicts and disagreements. In the future we probably will have a NATO empire and an Eurasia (Russia + India + China + etc.) empire.

    The funny thing in this story is that no one in the list calls itself an empire. But all of them accused each others as "empires".

    Because Empires don't suite with being Good Guy.

    Dictionary definition of Empire

    a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

    So by that definition the US is a true empire, ruling over nations (EU) which is proven by the fact that they are hurting own economical and political interests just to do what US says i.e Sanctions and Propaganda war of the evil Russia.

    The CSTO on other hand is not fully developed and can be hardly claimed as an empire that dictates around the nations, especially considering all relly on China and good relations with them and Russia needs China and vice versa.

    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 815
    Points : 1307
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Henry Kissinger : Western new world order in decline ?

    Post  nemrod on Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:07 pm

    Western world order worked in the past because Russia -and most russians- naively believed in the US -US does not mean american people, Iam not doing anti americanism as a worker, a baker, a butcher, waitress, an engineer, an analyst developper are not the bastards who starve the planet in wall Street as Paul Singer, CEO of Goldman Sachs, Loyid Blanksfein, Bank of America, Rothschild bank' CEO, Rubin etc.... In US there two world, the world of average people and the parasytes. - hoax. 20 years after the end of the Soviet Union, russians realized how US are their strongest and the more lethal ennemy. As russians leaders and elite realized it, since the early 2000's they took actions against Nato and the west. Now with the help of China, India, Russia is more stronger than never, and western new world order is on the verge of collapse. Russia will have to continue to rearm, and to take care about where is, and who is its mortal ennemy.
    For that reason Kissinger who are among those who decide in US is in disarray, if not angry. Brezynski reached the same conclusion.
    The main event in the 2000's is the election of Putin. This why US establishment is enraged against russian's adminstration.


    http://online.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-on-the-assembly-of-a-new-world-order-1409328075


    Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order
    The concept that has underpinned the modern geopolitical era is in crisis

    The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis, writes Henry Kissinger. Above, a pro-Russian fighter stands guard at a checkpoint close to Donetsk, Ukraine in July. European Pressphoto Agency

    Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.

    The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.

    This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world's territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.

    The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.

    First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

    The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe's: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

    The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

    This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union's southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

    The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations. A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as "social media" event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.

    The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.

    The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.
    A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.

    To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

    For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

    — Dr. Kissinger served as national security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Adapted from his book "World Order," to be published Sept. 9 by the Penguin Press.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2120
    Points : 2213
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:54 am

    US cannot claimed the spread of so-called "democracy" to be its own deeds. To be fair, the US and the West play a certain role in the spread of modern democracy. But the main power for democracy lays in the local people themselves. Not to mention that the US strongly support many kinds of dicactor and tyrant regime such as Saudi Arabia, Franco's Spain, Mobutu's Zaire, and Somoza's Nicaragua.

    The rise of the US cannot be idetified with democracy or liberty, but with constant wars of invasion and a crazy attitude of intervene in others' internal affairs.

    Not to mention in the realm of religion and theology, the US is in the level of the Middle Age. With 46% of the population do not believe in scientific evolution, the US need to re-examine about the brainwashing and propaganda of right-wing god-mongers.

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11593
    Points : 12064
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  George1 on Fri May 08, 2015 2:24 pm

    Russia-Argentina Accords Are Another Step Toward Multipolar World - Expert

    Ariel Noyola Rodriguez, a Mexican economist and columnist for Contralinea Magazine, believes that the deepening of ties between Russia and Argentina portend the creation of a new, multipolar world order.

    The economist, who earlier postulated that the Eurasian Union project and Latin America's Common Market of the South complement each other in fundamental ways, now argues in an article for Voltaire Network that the present global situation presents huge challenges for countries, "inviting…the consolidation of multi-vectored alliances," of which the deepening of Russian-Argentinian relations is an example.

    Rodriguez states that such alliances are founded by economic cooperation (including commerce and investment), and strengthened by energy, geopolitics, and military technical cooperation.

    The expert explains that when it comes to Russia-Argentina relations, "the more than 20 documents [signed] by the president of Argentina, Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, during the meeting with her counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, indicate the opportunities which emerge" as bilateral links pass "from 'strategic partnership' (which started in December 2008 during Dmitri Medvedev's presidency) to an 'integral strategic partnership ([from] April of the current year)."

    Furthermore, Rodriguez believes that the growing links between the two countries are a sign of "Washington's incapacity to sabotage the construction of a multipolar world." In the expert's view, this is part of a larger, global trend. He notes that in the 21st century, US attempts at preserving a unipolar world order have "failed to stop the rise of new economic and political actors in Latin America and the Eurasian region."

    According to Rodriguez, Argentina's strengthening ties with Russia is part of a long-term strategy to reorient trade toward Eurasia and the Orient, noting that between 2005 and 2013, economic exchanges with Russia, India and China rose from 9.36 to 14 percent of total trade, while trade with the United States dropped from 13 to 8.21 percent in the same period. And a great deal of room for the further strengthen ties, in food, mining, petrol, and other areas, still exists, according to the economist.

    Energy

    Rodriguez focuses on the express importance of Russian energy and construction firms' slew of deals with their Argentinian counterparts aimed at the creation and upgrading of nuclear, hydroelectric and thermal power in Argentina, noting that the deals will allow Buenos Aires to save foreign exchange in the purchase of energy and fuel. He comments as well on the importance of Gazprom's signing of a memorandum of understanding with Argentina's Treasury Petroleum Fields (YPF), Argentina's majority state-owned energy company, stating that "for the first time in history, both companies are going to make parallel investments in exploration activities, production and transportation of hydrocarbons in Argentina and third countries."

    Defense


    Considering the propensity for the "geo-politicization of international relations," Rodriguez's most intriguing argument by far is that in order to resist aggressive powers' tools of "war and occupation as mechanisms of dispossession," Russia and China should deepen their economic and energy 'integral strategic partnerships' via security and defense pacts as well. The expert argues that at present, Moscow and Beijing are the only nations "capable of offsetting North American forces in Latin American territory."

    Ariel Noyola Rodriguez, economist and columnist for Contralinea Magazine, notes that US attempts to contain emerging economies including Russia and the countries of Latin America work only to hasten these nations' efforts to create a new, truly multipolar world order independent of Washington's influence

    In this respect, Rodriguez believes that "technical-military cooperation with the Russian Federation constitutes a key element in guarding Latin America's sovereignty." For Argentina specifically, he argues that enhanced security cooperation with Moscow, which can include arms sales and the exchange of military instructors, will assist Buenos Aires in defending against US interventionism while simultaneously countering Britain's military power projection capabilities in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.

    The Mexican economist argues that "in the final analysis…the construction of a multipolar world demands" that Russia and Argentina "unify their efforts to articulate a security and defense strategy against the excesses of the United States and its allies."

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150508/1021868566.html#ixzz3ZY6YQStF
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11593
    Points : 12064
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  George1 on Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:01 am

    China, Latin American Ties to Weaken US Influence in New Multipolar World

    China and Latin America are developing a new bilateral approach based on trade and investment.

    China has become an essential source of growth for Latin America. The value of bilateral trade grew 22 times between 2000 and 2014. Last year, two-way trade hit 263.6 billion US dollars and China's investment in the region also went up to more than 80 billion dollars.

    Six months ago Beijing held a two-day forum with the leaders of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC in Spanish), a 33-country bloc. During the forum the Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged that Chinese direct investment in Latin America would reach $250 billion over the next decade while predicting that annual bilateral trade could hit $500 billion, reports Strategic Culture.

    This business alliance has also contributed to the political change in China-Latin America ties. Countries like Brazil, Chile and Peru, represent most of South America and China makes up their first commercial partner.

    As for Latin America as a whole, China is its second commercial partner, slightly behind the US. Even Central America and the Caribbean which just decades ago were within the grip of US hegemonic influence are now recognizing Beijing as their closest ally in Asia.

    Likewise, as some SCO member partners do, several South American countries are replacing the US dollar in bilateral trade by using their local currencies and the Chinese yuan.

    The most recent agreement signed in May, between Chile and China established that Chile's central bank and the People's Bank of China are clearing a path for the use of the Chinese yuan in South America, including a swap agreement about to facilitate exchanges of a maximum of 2.2 trillion pesos ($3.6 billion) for three years.

    Furthermore, Chinese president Xi Jinping has proposed increased connectivity between BRICS and South America. Ufa’s BRICS declaration in July 2015 proclaimed that New Development Bank (NDB) “shall serve as a powerful instrument for financing infrastructure investment and sustainable development projects in the BRICS and other developing countries and emerging market economies.”

    Xi also proposed NDB’s close cooperation with financing mechanisms such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

    Whether Beijing has the intention to compete with Washington for a greater sphere of influence in the South American region remains unclear but unavoidably it will significantly weaken the US influence in the subcontinent.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/business/20150730/1025223210.html#ixzz3hQU4bBa1

    Sponsored content

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:16 pm