Jim Rickards asked a provocative question today: Has World War III already begun? Obviously the world is in the grip of a global power struggle that includes very major kinetic military aspects. Is this power struggle a world war? In a very real sense, yes, it is. Rickards has in mind a spread of the military conflict in Ukraine to other parts of the world—westward into Europe, southwards across the Sahel area of Africa.
I asked, innocently enough, earlier in this thread whether US-led Western Imperialism and BRICS ++ are not, essentially, two sides of the same coin. In other words, isn't the end game for both movements, total economic control by elites over large portions of the world's population? Thanks to @@Gavin, Bruce, ccdirt, and Mark for your thoughtful responses. They led me to dig in and look for even more answers on the interwebs.
I found that some observers share a concern that BRICs++, led by China in particular, is actually a front for a disturbing expansion of Chinese power. For example, the US Council on Foreign Relations sees the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative as a massive infrastructure project fronting for an increase in Chinese power around the globe. Other observers see a looming military confrontation with China.
Another observer cynically observes that "BRICS+ is just NWO 2.0 except non-Western, non-USA, non-Anglo, non-European, the same big government, big corporation agenda, minus the LGBT push." So, this observer claims, BRICS+ enthuses over:
– United Nations 2030 Agenda
– IMF WTO WHO but they should be ‘more inclusive’
– Global ‘pandemic response’ & ‘vaccine research’
– ‘Climate Change’ actions
– ‘Digital’ economy, education, everything
– ‘Public – Private Partnership’
– ‘Sustainable Development’
– ‘Anti-terrorism’
– ‘Intellectual property rights’
– ‘Fighting corruption’ by surveillance
I haven't followed the BRICs agenda closely enough to dispute these conclusions.
However, all this reading led me to a podcast called Geopolitical Economy Hour, where a few days ago political economists Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai discuss the political and geopolitical underpinnings of the West and the BRICs. I understand that Hudson is described by many as a Marxist economist, whatever that means in the 21st Century, and so, of course, I take his proscriptions with several grains of salt. Nevertheless he and Desai do identify numerous substantial differences between the BRICs approach to global development and the Western approach.
Here are some clips:
"The Western press has ... sought to portray these countries, the BRICS countries, as little more than a bunch of autocracies or very iffy democracies. But in fact, despite such propaganda, what we’ve seen in the BRICS summit is that they have been focused on presenting a very different vision of the world order, one based on development, on people-centered development."
"[T]he BRICS summit [presents] an alternative that’s not just about the institutional arrangements and the technicalities, but it is an alternative vision of the world order. On the one side, you have imperialism and economic subordination, which is what the West is offering. And on the other side, you have a world order which is based on cooperation, on peace, and above all, on development."
"[W]e should really ... take a deep dive into the basics of ... geopolitical economy, into the basics of our perspective, which in fact is very different from what is on offer in the mainstream media and ... allow you to sort of see through the smoke and mirrors created by the dominant approaches.
"That’s why it’s important to distinguish, for example, between the foreign policies of imperialist powers, such as the United States or Britain or France, from the foreign policies of other powers, whether it’s China or even some powers, say like India or Brazil, which are not exactly socialist, but nevertheless, they do not have the same imperial background. So we see international relationships as being rooted in domestic relationships."
The balance of the podcast proceeds in the same vein, unearthing and discussing the fundamental differences in the Western globalization project and the unfolding BRICs project. I found it to be a very interesting exercise in developing and tabling the real issues actually facing us.
Niger: Military Junta Orders Police To Expel French Ambassador – Macron Questions Legitimacy of Coup Leaders, Threatens Response if Military or Diplomatic Facilities Are Targeted
Speaking of a 'global war', how is BRICS++ not yet another manifestation of 'globalism'? Maybe not the 'globalism' of the US neocon and Uniparty hegemonists, or the 'globalism' of Klaus Schwab and the WEF, but 'globalist' just the same as it stretches across Asia from China to Eastern Europe and the Baltic Sea, to the Middle East and northern and southern Africa, and thence to South America...
Doesn't it look increasingly like 'globalism' will result in two enormous economic 'blocs'? Can they peacefully coexist? Or is conflict, including kinetic conflict, inevitable? Is this what WWIII will look like?
Oh, but that right there is the risk. At least one member of BRICS wouldn't mind that outcome at all, but not as a broad-minded globalist. BRICS have plenty of internal tensions - the thing to track over time will be the consistency (or lack thereof) of deals at the start, and deals in practice. The other piece will be the treatment of resource / transit pathway important non-aligned countries (Phillipines, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc)
Maybe. Personally, I'm not against sovereign states uniting to put together guidelines & structure to make finance & trade easier between each other. I am against doing so in order that stronger predatory countries take advantage of & enslave the weaker ones. The IMF seemed most notorious for that, but probably only because they were getting a hearty wink wink nod nod from the US?
Will China &/or Russia try to do the same predatory act? Who knows for sure? Presently, I don't see that as their intent. I think the goal for now is stability & stopping the "if I don't like or want to manipulate you, I'll cut your financial throat" stuff.
I think the world has already moved eons beyond kinetic warfare. Mind control, biowarfare, maybe a bunch of AI stuff I can't begin to comprehend seem like the new faces of war to me. It's all around us already.
Basically, I agree with ccdirtdawgs. Yes, we are looking at, if not global blocs, then large blocs on a widely international scale. However, the BRICS "bloc" is built on a foundation of mutual self-interest, rather than coercion and manipulation. Examples: India continues to act independently of the rest of BRICS in important ways. The US continues to maintain something like 100 military bases in Italy alone--not to mention the rest of the world. The US has repeatedly undermined elections around the world and staged coups when election "meddling" failed. The US has used the dollar to coerce and punish. I don't view anything like these degrees of coercion or manipulation as likely to emerge from BRICS. Certainly BRICS is very far from acting in the type of lock-step fashion that we see coming from the American Empire: NATO, the EU.
As for whether these two "blocs" will inevitably go to war, I remain of the view that war on that scale is not at all inevitable. I believe that the US will be gradually forced to rethink its international posture and accept multi-polarism. That in turn will help ensure that BRICS does not develop into a military alliance. Regional rivalries will no doubt arise, but that will be different.
It was reported this morning that thousands gathered in the Niger capital of Niamey to demand that France withdraw their French troops. Seem to recall that was only abt 3k?
In Ukraine, oligarch & chief Nazi Kolomoisky has been charged w/fraud, embezzling & laundering up to $1 billion away from the country. Kolomoisky was stripped of his Ukrainian citizenship last year, so not sure if the charges are just for show or they truly intend to bring him in to face trial?
Either the French fight here and now to preserve the entirety of their African imperial holdings, or they skedaddle and thereby leave the US alone to attempt to retain western control over the region.
It's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" scenario all around.
You write: "China and Russia have pledged hundreds of billions in investment and sales to Iran, supporting them after Former President Trump tore up the JCPOA and put on sanctions which didn’t work, unless Trump’s goal was to ensure what has transpired since. This is further proof Trump doesn’t play 4-d chess."
What if Trump's goal was exactly what you speculate here? Suddenly it looks as though Trump does play 4-d chess, and he's a master. Let's see what happens.
When the sanctions on Iran happened the talks for the Abrahiam accords were about to start or already started, and Israel needed to be at the table so my guess was the sanctions were put their so that could happen. I think the accords were to get all the parties talking after being at each others throats for centuries. Since the accords were announced Israel has tried to screw things up but now that former adversaries are talking and see a bright future they are not falling for the old tricks. The neat thing is all these talks happened and the State Department and the 5 eyes had no idea it was going on.
In normal times it would be entirely possible, T. They are used to such interventions and have the Foreign Legion and some good special force units. However, these are not normal times. The French economy is in a poor state, the French people are rather angry with the government, such foreign ventures are seen these days are somewhat "unwoke". Maybe the French will just have to pay market prices for uranium like the rest of us.
Would be interesting to see the time-range of the shift, but likely one part was COVID general slow down (as sources from the EU became difficult to get at normal supply rates, and - generally Asian - other sources picked up the slack), in parallel to not honest intra-day bank rates (the shift away from LIBOR [London inter-bank offered rate] to SOFR [secured over-night finance rate]), capped off by the Uke war sanction stunt involving SWIFT: every signal says you are going to get harmed more than otherwise if you settle *only* in euros (or dollars or pound sterling).
Anything climate or sustainable outside the West is usually virtue signaling or grifting, and has no actual meaning. China is the poster child of amazing words on climate change, vs the reality of heavy coal use.
Amazing: Senate Democrats are blocking disaster aid from the US Government for American citizens in dire need unless it also includes the billions more for the war in Ukraine that the Biden WH wants.
Such a perfect microcosm of this party.
Quote
Burgess Everett (asapburgessev on
@burgessev
Democratic Sen. Duckworth tells reporters she will object to Sen. Rick Scott's plans to pass disaster aid on its own without rest of Biden admin supplemental request
“I would. I think it's important to include Ukrainian funding”
It’s unbelievable how we can all see and talk about the overt corruption of our government yet not one or a small group of politicians can be rallied to confront the travesty and downfall of our country.
Yes ... the internal thievery, lack of care for citizens, corrupted institutions of authority, and official dishonest have us rhyming with Rome circa 400 AD. Dang
I asked, innocently enough, earlier in this thread whether US-led Western Imperialism and BRICS ++ are not, essentially, two sides of the same coin. In other words, isn't the end game for both movements, total economic control by elites over large portions of the world's population? Thanks to @@Gavin, Bruce, ccdirt, and Mark for your thoughtful responses. They led me to dig in and look for even more answers on the interwebs.
I found that some observers share a concern that BRICs++, led by China in particular, is actually a front for a disturbing expansion of Chinese power. For example, the US Council on Foreign Relations sees the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative as a massive infrastructure project fronting for an increase in Chinese power around the globe. Other observers see a looming military confrontation with China.
Another observer cynically observes that "BRICS+ is just NWO 2.0 except non-Western, non-USA, non-Anglo, non-European, the same big government, big corporation agenda, minus the LGBT push." So, this observer claims, BRICS+ enthuses over:
– United Nations 2030 Agenda
– IMF WTO WHO but they should be ‘more inclusive’
– Global ‘pandemic response’ & ‘vaccine research’
– ‘Climate Change’ actions
– ‘Digital’ economy, education, everything
– ‘Public – Private Partnership’
– ‘Sustainable Development’
– ‘Anti-terrorism’
– ‘Intellectual property rights’
– ‘Fighting corruption’ by surveillance
I haven't followed the BRICs agenda closely enough to dispute these conclusions.
However, all this reading led me to a podcast called Geopolitical Economy Hour, where a few days ago political economists Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai discuss the political and geopolitical underpinnings of the West and the BRICs. I understand that Hudson is described by many as a Marxist economist, whatever that means in the 21st Century, and so, of course, I take his proscriptions with several grains of salt. Nevertheless he and Desai do identify numerous substantial differences between the BRICs approach to global development and the Western approach.
Here are some clips:
"The Western press has ... sought to portray these countries, the BRICS countries, as little more than a bunch of autocracies or very iffy democracies. But in fact, despite such propaganda, what we’ve seen in the BRICS summit is that they have been focused on presenting a very different vision of the world order, one based on development, on people-centered development."
"[T]he BRICS summit [presents] an alternative that’s not just about the institutional arrangements and the technicalities, but it is an alternative vision of the world order. On the one side, you have imperialism and economic subordination, which is what the West is offering. And on the other side, you have a world order which is based on cooperation, on peace, and above all, on development."
"[W]e should really ... take a deep dive into the basics of ... geopolitical economy, into the basics of our perspective, which in fact is very different from what is on offer in the mainstream media and ... allow you to sort of see through the smoke and mirrors created by the dominant approaches.
"That’s why it’s important to distinguish, for example, between the foreign policies of imperialist powers, such as the United States or Britain or France, from the foreign policies of other powers, whether it’s China or even some powers, say like India or Brazil, which are not exactly socialist, but nevertheless, they do not have the same imperial background. So we see international relationships as being rooted in domestic relationships."
The balance of the podcast proceeds in the same vein, unearthing and discussing the fundamental differences in the Western globalization project and the unfolding BRICs project. I found it to be a very interesting exercise in developing and tabling the real issues actually facing us.
You can read (or watch) more here: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/08/29/imperialism-classes-nations-radhika-desai-michael-hudson/.
Niger: Military Junta Orders Police To Expel French Ambassador – Macron Questions Legitimacy of Coup Leaders, Threatens Response if Military or Diplomatic Facilities Are Targeted
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/niger-military-junta-orders-police-expel-french-ambassador/
Speaking of a 'global war', how is BRICS++ not yet another manifestation of 'globalism'? Maybe not the 'globalism' of the US neocon and Uniparty hegemonists, or the 'globalism' of Klaus Schwab and the WEF, but 'globalist' just the same as it stretches across Asia from China to Eastern Europe and the Baltic Sea, to the Middle East and northern and southern Africa, and thence to South America...
Doesn't it look increasingly like 'globalism' will result in two enormous economic 'blocs'? Can they peacefully coexist? Or is conflict, including kinetic conflict, inevitable? Is this what WWIII will look like?
Oh, but that right there is the risk. At least one member of BRICS wouldn't mind that outcome at all, but not as a broad-minded globalist. BRICS have plenty of internal tensions - the thing to track over time will be the consistency (or lack thereof) of deals at the start, and deals in practice. The other piece will be the treatment of resource / transit pathway important non-aligned countries (Phillipines, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc)
Maybe. Personally, I'm not against sovereign states uniting to put together guidelines & structure to make finance & trade easier between each other. I am against doing so in order that stronger predatory countries take advantage of & enslave the weaker ones. The IMF seemed most notorious for that, but probably only because they were getting a hearty wink wink nod nod from the US?
Will China &/or Russia try to do the same predatory act? Who knows for sure? Presently, I don't see that as their intent. I think the goal for now is stability & stopping the "if I don't like or want to manipulate you, I'll cut your financial throat" stuff.
I think the world has already moved eons beyond kinetic warfare. Mind control, biowarfare, maybe a bunch of AI stuff I can't begin to comprehend seem like the new faces of war to me. It's all around us already.
Basically, I agree with ccdirtdawgs. Yes, we are looking at, if not global blocs, then large blocs on a widely international scale. However, the BRICS "bloc" is built on a foundation of mutual self-interest, rather than coercion and manipulation. Examples: India continues to act independently of the rest of BRICS in important ways. The US continues to maintain something like 100 military bases in Italy alone--not to mention the rest of the world. The US has repeatedly undermined elections around the world and staged coups when election "meddling" failed. The US has used the dollar to coerce and punish. I don't view anything like these degrees of coercion or manipulation as likely to emerge from BRICS. Certainly BRICS is very far from acting in the type of lock-step fashion that we see coming from the American Empire: NATO, the EU.
As for whether these two "blocs" will inevitably go to war, I remain of the view that war on that scale is not at all inevitable. I believe that the US will be gradually forced to rethink its international posture and accept multi-polarism. That in turn will help ensure that BRICS does not develop into a military alliance. Regional rivalries will no doubt arise, but that will be different.
China has been an empire in the past, in fact for most of its history, so that might offer a clue for future behavior. Not a guarantee.
It was reported this morning that thousands gathered in the Niger capital of Niamey to demand that France withdraw their French troops. Seem to recall that was only abt 3k?
In Ukraine, oligarch & chief Nazi Kolomoisky has been charged w/fraud, embezzling & laundering up to $1 billion away from the country. Kolomoisky was stripped of his Ukrainian citizenship last year, so not sure if the charges are just for show or they truly intend to bring him in to face trial?
Will Schryver
@imetatronink
Replying to
@The_Real_Fly
Either the French fight here and now to preserve the entirety of their African imperial holdings, or they skedaddle and thereby leave the US alone to attempt to retain western control over the region.
It's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" scenario all around.
https://twitter.com/TFL1728/status/1697716045409132824
You write: "China and Russia have pledged hundreds of billions in investment and sales to Iran, supporting them after Former President Trump tore up the JCPOA and put on sanctions which didn’t work, unless Trump’s goal was to ensure what has transpired since. This is further proof Trump doesn’t play 4-d chess."
What if Trump's goal was exactly what you speculate here? Suddenly it looks as though Trump does play 4-d chess, and he's a master. Let's see what happens.
When the sanctions on Iran happened the talks for the Abrahiam accords were about to start or already started, and Israel needed to be at the table so my guess was the sanctions were put their so that could happen. I think the accords were to get all the parties talking after being at each others throats for centuries. Since the accords were announced Israel has tried to screw things up but now that former adversaries are talking and see a bright future they are not falling for the old tricks. The neat thing is all these talks happened and the State Department and the 5 eyes had no idea it was going on.
"You write"
More precisely: Luongo writes, I quote.
Point taken, maybe pass the comment on to Tom, if you see him.
Who in the hell thinks France is capable of carrying on a war thousands of miles from Paris? Please.
In normal times it would be entirely possible, T. They are used to such interventions and have the Foreign Legion and some good special force units. However, these are not normal times. The French economy is in a poor state, the French people are rather angry with the government, such foreign ventures are seen these days are somewhat "unwoke". Maybe the French will just have to pay market prices for uranium like the rest of us.
I wonder why the use of the EU fell for foreign trade.
Would be interesting to see the time-range of the shift, but likely one part was COVID general slow down (as sources from the EU became difficult to get at normal supply rates, and - generally Asian - other sources picked up the slack), in parallel to not honest intra-day bank rates (the shift away from LIBOR [London inter-bank offered rate] to SOFR [secured over-night finance rate]), capped off by the Uke war sanction stunt involving SWIFT: every signal says you are going to get harmed more than otherwise if you settle *only* in euros (or dollars or pound sterling).
additional notes to your post, Mark Wauck,
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/sustainable-development-its-what
Anything climate or sustainable outside the West is usually virtue signaling or grifting, and has no actual meaning. China is the poster child of amazing words on climate change, vs the reality of heavy coal use.
I believe you're right on that.
Glenn Greenwald
@ggreenwald
Amazing: Senate Democrats are blocking disaster aid from the US Government for American citizens in dire need unless it also includes the billions more for the war in Ukraine that the Biden WH wants.
Such a perfect microcosm of this party.
Quote
Burgess Everett (asapburgessev on
@burgessev
Democratic Sen. Duckworth tells reporters she will object to Sen. Rick Scott's plans to pass disaster aid on its own without rest of Biden admin supplemental request
“I would. I think it's important to include Ukrainian funding”
It’s unbelievable how we can all see and talk about the overt corruption of our government yet not one or a small group of politicians can be rallied to confront the travesty and downfall of our country.
Tells us how broad and deep it is, no?
I view Ukraine as a large shiny object of distraction and as a huge money laundering operation.
I wonder how big the Ukraine lobbying is in DC.
Manafort, Podestra, and Hunter were involved.
My gut feeling is huge.
Many GOP big wheels are up to their neck in it too. Exhibit A: Mitt Romney. Hence the almost bipartisan agreement that the Ukraine circus must go on.
Yep. Beyond lobbying, I think. The corruption must be fairly obvious, pretty nakedly awful, and be Uniparty equitable.
Yes ... the internal thievery, lack of care for citizens, corrupted institutions of authority, and official dishonest have us rhyming with Rome circa 400 AD. Dang
I think I have heard Douglas Macgregor say that its 400,000 Ukrainians and perhaps 100,000 Russians dead.