Lets consider 1. modern day china was setup with the help of the soviets.
2. The soviets "collapsed" in 1990. 3. u.s. finance and military helped arm and aid the soviets against germany.
And it occurred to me that theres an alternative explanation for what is happening.
Israel may have been a containment strategy by british-lead europeans against zionists. This obviously failed.
But interestingly, if ukraine were emptied out, what it would do is make europe much more reliant on russian agricultural exports.
More importantly it would use the population imported from israel, as a buffer population against nato, which would explain why NATO wanted an expanded front e.x. Finland. Finland is a fall back.
Russia is trying to break NATO encirclement before it is complete. That means the u.s.
and the west are STILL running on the heartland thesis.
Which would mean what? That china is relevant to this discussion. The two situations are
inextricably linked. If china could take taiwan, the u.s. foothold onto the mainland,
i.e. korea, could be shaken loose, breaking containment--which would immediately put
to question japans alliance with the u.s.
This could only be the case if 1. russia and china are in bed together, and have been covertly for a while, 2. either russia or china is trying to force an alliance with the other.
One is unlikely because its already been established the u.s., or factions of it, are vassal
proxies for the chinese, and most of our actions fighting russia in ukraine have been to
hem it in, forcing russia into chinas arms.
This supports case two, so it's a foregone conclusion then.
Interestingly this would suggest that if Finland makes russias victory in ukraine moot, then
the west would have to move for some alternative or escalation before russia locks in
that victory. This would represent the failure of china's attempt to use the west to hem in russia and lockdown the russians as a long term ally. Which suggests the FSB has broken away from the long term marxist global integration plans. Makes sense actually, interests are permanent, allies aren't. There were always going to be defectors.
Let me explain. The u.s. has increasingly been 'abandoning' zionism in the middle east, in preference to islamic nations. This would make sense if the chinese were 1. running the u.s. for the most part and deciding our foreign policies, 2. courting control of the middle east to shore up and gain leverage for a a takeover of the budding BRICs basket-currency BEFORE it even fully emerges. They don't want shared power, they want leverage, cold hard leverage. Everyones currency ostensibly has a say, but the petroyuan takes the lions share, and if the plan for hemming in russia using their proxy the u.s. worked, then russia would have no choice, especially if the chinese controlled a new turkey or saudi lead coalition in the middle east, thus simultaneously controlling russian exports (because they'd be tied to brics and unable to export through ukraine, and at the same time unable to export through middle eastern hubs without chinese say-so).
Effectively russia's new rump state in ukraine would come to have enormous leverage over russian exports, pitting russia and china against one another, because ukraine could, like the old playbook, decide when and where to shut the gas off and cause immediate multibillion dollar speculative swings in the energy markets. And speculators would flock to it, while long term investment would flee.
This is the same powersharing arrangement between the chinese and the zionists, which allowed the takeover of the u.s.
Communism never died. It's been marching through the institutions of every nation on earth, starting with the soviets, and passing the torch to the british european union, the israelis and the chinese.
Russia hopes by liberating ukraine, knowing a new middle eastern war is coming, that the new jewish population will act as a proxy state, and a buffer, breaking NATO containment, but really what is happening is NATO is being used as a sacrificial effigy and distraction.
With chinese investment in the middle east, and israeli takeover of ukraine (and mass importation of zionists from around the world), between the two, russia will effectively be hemmed in, being run rope-adope between a rock and a hard place, both exerting leverage and pressure on russias exports. They'll trade u.s. sanctions for something worse.
What this means is that everything, and I do mean everything hinges on if erdogan remains in power, or the pre-color-change operations happening there succeed.
If erdogan wins, turkey remains independant, and a challenger to the sauds, who not only were in bed with the israelis (which is why they agreed to take the fall for 9/11), but have been for years. The sauds are the new agreed on leaders of the middle east when israel is made to "fall" and many of them "flee" (are exported) to coalition forces rebuilding ukraine.
With erdogan in the picture, this can't happen. The middle east remains splintered between turkish leadership and globalist selected saudi leadership, and every single major nation, including Iran, uses this divide to inflame the division and jockey for a new rank. We end up with a new major regional conflict involving a dozen or more nations in the middle east.
The plan goes to pot, israel gets annihilated anyway, saudi arabia flips to chinese control for protection, and ukraine goes to russia. The taiwan invasion either doesn't happen or fails, and the u.s. splinter faction thats a proxy for the israelis and chinese, eventually collapses.
If russia wins in ukraine and erdogan loses, then shortly after we see israel lose a major war, and its population flee--this contrary to any prior information you may have heard of russia "kicking out israeli and zionist oligarchs".
If it looks like russia is going to win, but erdogan remains in power, then the entire plan is in grave jeopardy. The u.s. will have to immediately kick off a war in the middle east.
Iran could co-opt this entire plan, a wild card, forcing the sauds to choose. In a three way between turkey, the sauds, and iran, the u.s. would have to intervene, russia would have to intervene, and china would have to intervene. It would turn into another vietnam, times ten.
The u.s. left its weapons in Afghanistan for just such a contingency. To arm the israeli-run isis and taliban, to fight the shia in iran, and provoke them into doing their job against israel, thus removing the risk of the wildcard upsetting the backup plan or potentially flipping the sauds against america or israel.
Heres the thing:
Russia is already winning in ukraine. The sauds are already entering brics and entertaining the chinese, rather than ties with israel. Iran, the weapon meant to get the israelis to flee to ukraine, is refusing any provocations. Iran's refusal to go to war has effectively flipped saudi arabia against the broader plan.
And if that is the case, then I expect a powersharing arrangement to be arrived at soon between many middle eastern nations, with saudi arabia, iran, and possibly turkey as the major heads. It turns out the plan by gaddafi wasn't so much him creating the future, as him seeing an opportunity to co-opt what he saw a inevitable. The thorn in the lions paw was going to be pulled free, no matter who chose to do it. This makes sense in a grand-sort of geopolitical vision on the underlying historical dynamics of the region.
Worse for the globalists, now that all this is already unfolding, if their already-lit fuse on turkey goes through, and erdogan loses power, then saudi arabia and iran likely go to war, and rather than israelis being allowed to flee to ukraine, israel gets outright obliterated.
The u.s. moves in immediately, and russia moves in to prevent turkey from being a u.s. protectorate. China abandons its u.s. proxy, and moves on taiwan immediately, and rather than taking it without a shot fired, the u.s. flips and goes for a hot war what with the chinese-supported faction in the u.s. government abandoned.
Everything hinges on only two meta-variables now: Whether russia wins in ukraine (likely), and whether erdogan remains in power (unknown).
This is what is happening. This is the situation on the ground.
bossman131 1 points 2.0 years ago
The US dollar’s supremacy and US global leadership have been increasingly questioned since the 2007–2008 global financial crisis. The fact that this crisis originated in the United States raised concerns about the reliability of US leadership and the rationality of preserving the dollar’s hegemonic position in the global financial system. This crisis also created an opportunity for rising powers to seek greater status and representation in global governance. In 2009, Russian President Medvedev hosted the first BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) Summit in Yekaterinburg to explore how to “overcome the crisis and establish a fairer international system … and discuss the parameters for a new financial system.” Since South Africa joined BRIC in 2010, transforming BRIC into BRICS, the five members have achieved policy coordination in over seventy issue areas. BRICS’ foremost achievements have been in the area of financial cooperation, as evidenced by the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB), the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), and various other financial coordination mechanisms.
The NDB’s commitment to using local currency finance rather than solely relying on the US dollar is merely the tip of the iceberg of BRICS’ de-dollarization initiatives. It is also an open question whether the accelerated de-dollarization process in Russia and China, triggered by their growing tensions with the United States, is only a temporary change, or whether it forms a broader paradigm shift in global finance. To give this some context, the share of the US dollar in Russia–China bilateral trade settlement fell from nearly 90 percent in 2015 to 46 percent in 2020.
Russia and China have launched their own cross-border payment mechanisms as alternatives to the US-dominated SWIFT network. BRICS has also conceptualized a common BRICS Pay system for retail payments and transactions among member countries, which has been enabled by rapid progress in the financial technology (fintech) sector. Such de-dollarization initiatives are happening largely under the radar of contemporary scholarship. Leaders of these initiatives are reform-oriented rising powers, including strategic adversaries of the United States, that have expressed discontent with the existing US-led dollar-based global financial system. Could these empirical cases serve as the “canary in the coal mine” and represent a larger de-dollarization movement?
Analyzing BRICS as a de-dollarization coalition and how it could mobilize other actors will contribute new and needed insights to the scholarship on rising powers and their impact on US global leadership. This study examines how the US dollar’s dominant position in the global financial system, the very foundation of its global leadership, can be undermined. This topic has important national security implications for the United States. The United States relies upon the dollar’s dominant currency status to credibly exercise coercive economic statecraft and sanction its adversaries. An increasingly de-dollarized world would weaken the United States’ ability to alter the behavior of its adversaries and could consequently magnify US national security threats.