Center Right and Far Right Swing in EU 2024 Vote

[BlueOak]

I tried to twice start a new thread for this, but I could not get the quotes to format correctly, so I'll take it as a sign to leave it here!

@ArcticGong
 

11 hours ago, ArcticGong said:

I’ll grant your right in principle, but wrong in intent. Meaning that all this actions are working to undermine European hegemony. However, I see it as all those countries pursuing their own self interest like any other nation, which automatically undermines every other nation. 

China and India aren’t buddies, for instance, but they’ll work on a couple of things if it serves them. India and Russia go way back so India won’t dump them just because the west wants them to do that.

By that logic, the UK worked overtime to undermine the EU by leaving it, even though it sounds far fetched.
 

And the dollar, I maybe underestimate the significance of this shift, but I don’t see any problem. In just world, I would be more open for the US using its economic power in coercive measure against rouge states to make them conform to international norms. However, we live in a world order where leaders can invade countries based on lies- weapons of mass destruction- and nobody gets prosecuted. Interestingly, the lie of weapons of mass destruction was one of the catalyst for mass immigration -Iraqis and afghanis- which is fuelling the European right wingers, which few people see the connection with. 
I’ll chose American corruption over the alternative.  But, I might be naive and underestimating the dangers. 

Spies come with the territory of politics. All countries use spies. 
 

FYI I  haven’t red the links, I’ll check them out.

 

All I see is other countries pursuing their own self-interests. This does not change anything about what I said. All countries pursue their self-interest in all things at all times. The effect is the undermining of the EU by trying to replace them, take the land and resources of sympathetic countries, seize the trade connections, replace the world currency, and overthrow their liberal or allied governments.
 

Part of the UK DID undermine the EU, yes. Nigel Farage’s (UKIP now Reform Party) and the Far Right’s primary goal is to break apart the EU. That’s what could happen now with the far-right swing in the latest EU vote, but it's still somewhat unlikely. A country is not an individual; it has many competing interests; the EU is about unity between nations, and the far right is about nationalism.

Sanctions against Russia have already proven ineffective because it didn't stop them. At least Western allies could hold up to 300,000 billion of Russian assets for leverage. If the dollar is replaced by the Yuan, and China takes over more of world banking as they want to, the only bargaining chip we have is words and force. What else is there? These two sets of competing interests set up the perfect conditions for WW3, adding to it far-right governments gaining power everywhere and aggressive dictators expanding their borders. The only answer when we are threatened is war; China's expansion and the Russian conflict especially have proven this to EU leaders.

Yes, war fuels migration, and war is the policy of far-right people who hate immigration. Their warlike actions, disregard for climate damage to food/water/living areas, and the inequality they create cause migration/immigration, which they then vilify people for. It’s a complete farce. With the rise of BRICS countries, people are celebrating the end of millions of lives. This is not hyperbole; either we sit on our hands and let BRICS roll over millions into authoritarian suppression, torture, and death, including those in Europe, or we fight.

Yes, all countries do stupid things. This moral equivalency argument you are giving me changes nothing. I don’t excuse BRCIS's warlike aggression because America was also warlike. Otherwise, when you or those close to you are being hit, I’ll have to excuse it again. Oh well, Russia did it, so it's okay that Venezuela does it to Guyana, or it's okay when Turkey invades Greece, or it’s OK when China invades Taiwan, France hits back in Africa, or 'the West', as we now call it final gets fed up of being pushed around and launches an invasion of its own. Europe is being forced to remilitarize, and the far right is gaining power there; the far right needs an external opponent to stay in power.

Everything is a cycle, but it doesn’t make it ‘okay’ or in any way better that people carry out the cycle.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/07/venezuela-maduro-guyana-esequibo-interstate-war-oil-referendum-icj/

Espionage has different levels of involvement. Like anything, it can increase or decrease. People are being killed off now, arrested in senior positions of the bureaucracy, and assassinated, not just monitored or secrets leaked.

@Ajay0

3 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

Are Spain and Turkey part of BRICS !

Spain is the second largest importer of liquified natural gas from Russia, while Turkey is the third largest importer of Russian oil.

Austria, Hungary, Belgium in EU constitute other high importers of Russian gas. 

https://www.dw.com/en/war-in-ukraine-why-is-the-eu-still-buying-russian-gas/a-68925869#:~:text=According to the data provider,to the EU in 2021.

Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has stated  that Europe has imported six times the fossil fuel energy from Russia than India has done since February 2022.

Spain is not in BRICS. Turkey is thinking of joining. Turkey is not in the EU; it wants to join. It won't get in both. Turkey is trying to play the middle ground due to their geopolitical location; if the world order continues to break down, it will be central to much of the planet's ability to function.

Lots of countries imported Russian gas, but there has been a considerable shift away from it. The primary purpose of this was to end funding for the war. BRICS bought up the excess to continue funding the war.

Article Quote: 
In short, EU dependence on Russian gas fell from 45% in 2021, to only 15% in 2023.

Also stated as a 71% drop by 2023, and it's more now

Source: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/focus-eu-energy-security-and-gas-supplies-2024-02-15_en

Lots of countries imported Russian fossil fuels, but there has been a huge shift away from it. The primary purpose of which was to end funding for the war. BRICS bought up the excess to continue funding or allow funding of the war to continue.

Article Quote:
Oil: China is the largest buyer of Russian crude oil, purchasing 52%, followed by India (33%), the EU (8%), and Turkey (5%) since the EU’s ban on crude oil from Russia on 5 December 2022. Oil via pipeline is only partially sanctioned. The EU’s crude oil imports have arrived via sea to Bulgaria and via pipeline for the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary.

But critically Russian LNG gas is not under sanctions, which remains a real problem in the EU, no arguments there. The EU was so dependent on Russian oil/gas it has been a real struggle to break that hold, but is happening. The problem is, its made little difference because BRICS just bought up the difference. - So, do you understand why economic pressure is no longer an effective tool in a multi-polar world? It'll have to be words, followed by force, which is war, and with two large blocks, with far-right governments gaining ground in all major countries, a high potential for WW3.

Article Quote:
China was the largest importer of Russian fossil fuels in January, accounting for 33% (EUR 7.1 bn) of total imports. Turkey recorded the second highest imports, accounting for 20% (EUR 3.1 bn), while India was third with an 18% (EUR 2.8 bn) import share. The EU and Brazil contributed 13% (EUR 2.1 bn) and 4% (EUR 0.7 bn) to Russian fossil fuel exports, respectively.

Source: https://energyandcleanair.org/january-2024-monthly-analysis-of-russian-fossil-fuel-exports-and-sanctions/

Edited June 12 by BlueOak

[Ajay0]

21 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

I tried to twice start a new thread for this, but I could not get the quotes to format correctly, so I'll take it as a sign to leave it here!

@ArcticGong
 

All I see is other countries pursuing their own self-interests. This does not change anything about what I said. All countries pursue their self-interest in all things at all times. The effect is the undermining of the EU by trying to replace them, take the land and resources of sympathetic countries, seize the trade connections, replace the world currency, and overthrow their liberal or allied governments.
 

Part of the UK DID undermine the EU, yes. Nigel Farage’s (UKIP now Reform Party) and the Far Right’s primary goal is to break apart the EU. That’s what could happen now with the far-right swing in the latest EU vote, but it's still somewhat unlikely. A country is not an individual; it has many competing interests; the EU is about unity between nations, and the far right is about nationalism.

Sanctions against Russia have already proven ineffective because it didn't stop them. At least Western allies could hold up to 300,000 billion of Russian assets for leverage. If the dollar is replaced by the Yuan, and China takes over more of world banking as they want to, the only bargaining chip we have is words and force. What else is there? These two sets of competing interests set up the perfect conditions for WW3, adding to it far-right governments gaining power everywhere and aggressive dictators expanding their borders. The only answer when we are threatened is war; China's expansion and the Russian conflict especially have proven this to EU leaders.

Yes, war fuels migration, and war is the policy of far-right people who hate immigration. Their warlike actions, disregard for climate damage to food/water/living areas, and the inequality they create cause migration/immigration, which they then vilify people for. It’s a complete farce. With the rise of BRICS countries, people are celebrating the end of millions of lives. This is not hyperbole; either we sit on our hands and let BRICS roll over millions into authoritarian suppression, torture, and death, including those in Europe, or we fight.

Yes, all countries do stupid things. This moral equivalency argument you are giving me changes nothing. I don’t excuse BRCIS's warlike aggression because America was also warlike. Otherwise, when you or those close to you are being hit, I’ll have to excuse it again. Oh well, Russia did it, so it's okay that Venezuela does it to Guyana, or it's okay when Turkey invades Greece, or it’s OK when China invades Taiwan, France hits back in Africa, or 'the West', as we now call it final gets fed up of being pushed around and launches an invasion of its own. Europe is being forced to remilitarize, and the far right is gaining power there; the far right needs an external opponent to stay in power.

Everything is a cycle, but it doesn’t make it ‘okay’ or in any way better that people carry out the cycle.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/07/venezuela-maduro-guyana-esequibo-interstate-war-oil-referendum-icj/

Espionage has different levels of involvement. Like anything, it can increase or decrease. People are being killed off now, arrested in senior positions of the bureaucracy, and assassinated, not just monitored or secrets leaked.

@Ajay0

Spain is not in BRICS. Turkey is thinking of joining. Turkey is not in the EU; it wants to join. It won't get in both. Turkey is trying to play the middle ground due to their geopolitical location; if the world order continues to break down, it will be central to much of the planet's ability to function.

Lots of countries imported Russian gas, but there has been a considerable shift away from it. The primary purpose of this was to end funding for the war. BRICS bought up the excess to continue funding the war.

Article Quote: 
In short, EU dependence on Russian gas fell from 45% in 2021, to only 15% in 2023.

Also stated as a 71% drop by 2023, and it's more now

Source: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/focus-eu-energy-security-and-gas-supplies-2024-02-15_en

Lots of countries imported Russian fossil fuels, but there has been a huge shift away from it. The primary purpose of which was to end funding for the war. BRICS bought up the excess to continue funding or allow funding of the war to continue.

Article Quote:
Oil: China is the largest buyer of Russian crude oil, purchasing 52%, followed by India (33%), the EU (8%), and Turkey (5%) since the EU’s ban on crude oil from Russia on 5 December 2022. Oil via pipeline is only partially sanctioned. The EU’s crude oil imports have arrived via sea to Bulgaria and via pipeline for the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary.

But critically Russian LNG gas is not under sanctions, which remains a real problem in the EU, no arguments there. The EU was so dependent on Russian oil/gas it has been a real struggle to break that hold, but is happening. The problem is, its made little difference because BRICS just bought up the difference. - So, do you understand why economic pressure is no longer an effective tool in a multi-polar world? It'll have to be words, followed by force, which is war, and with two large blocks, with far-right governments gaining ground in all major countries, a high potential for WW3.

Article Quote:
China was the largest importer of Russian fossil fuels in January, accounting for 33% (EUR 7.1 bn) of total imports. Turkey recorded the second highest imports, accounting for 20% (EUR 3.1 bn), while India was third with an 18% (EUR 2.8 bn) import share. The EU and Brazil contributed 13% (EUR 2.1 bn) and 4% (EUR 0.7 bn) to Russian fossil fuel exports, respectively.

Source: https://energyandcleanair.org/january-2024-monthly-analysis-of-russian-fossil-fuel-exports-and-sanctions/

Dude, the EU reduced imports of Russian fossil fuels from a high of $16 billion per month in early 2022 to around $1 billion per month by the end of 2023 (Figure 1). This still amounts to a huge figure of a billion dollars per month.

https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/european-union-russia-energy-divorce-state-play#:~:text=The EU reduced imports of,largest part of the reduction.

The EU is also the biggest buyers of refined oil from Turkey and India which originates as crude oil from Russia actually. 

Also the EU has increased substantially its gas imports from Russia.

https://www.dw.com/en/war-in-ukraine-why-is-the-eu-still-buying-russian-gas/a-68925869#:~:text=According to the data provider,to the EU in 2021.

Quote

According to the data provider Kpler, Russia is now the EU's second-biggest LNG supplier. LNG imports from Russia accounted for 16% of the EU's total LNG supply in 2023, a 40% increase compared with the amount Russia sold to the EU in 2021.

 

[Abe27]

Hey hey, us danes took the left turn this time!

[BlueOak]

@Ajay0

You just told me that the EU reduced its imports down by a factor of 16. I haven't seen that extreme amount supported, but I'll take your source's word for it. There is no way you can phrase that, which makes it seem like the EU hasn't massively cut imports; they would be importing 1/16th of what they were.

As you can see here, most of the LNG being used in the EU is coming in from America, and they keep increasing that.

https://www.bruegel.org/dataset/european-natural-gas-imports

Quote from your article:
Yet much of this LNG is not needed by the European market and is being handled at European ports before being reexported to third countries worldwide, with some EU states and companies profiting as a result.

"A lot of the Russian LNG that goes to Europe is just being 'trans-shipped,'" said Hilgenstock. "So that has nothing to do with Europe's natural gas supply. It's just European companies making money facilitating Russian LNG exports."

End Quote

Like the Indian and Turkish resellers you are speaking about, this is mainly individual billionaires and their companies profiteering, and these individuals will often be global in nature, shipping resources on through their existing supply chains. - Do I like this? No, but it is small potatoes comparatively that Spain and Belgium are using their maritime assets to profit for others. Otherwise, all those long-running supply chains will go bankrupt or adversely impact world trade. Russian supplies are still getting discounted; it's still hurting their war economy, it's still not going to fuel Europe, but yes, war profiteering should still be banned. Any money going to Russia, even indirectly shipped by companies with assets in Europe, needs to be squeezed.

AND if other countries in BRICS or others didn't buy this Russian LNG through Spanish and Belgian companies, it wouldn't go through them in the first place!

[zazen]

Similar to ArcticGong and as you mentioned in the follow up comment - BRICS / the global South are rising and this is unsettling the West - but a lot of intent is given to a coordinated effort to undermine the West when it is simply incentive driven towards sovereignty. 

NATO is a military alliance with collective defence commitments, BRICS is a economic and political grouping aimed at fostering cooperation among member countries. Strategic interests aligning doesn't mean conspiracy to put down the West.

Insisting that the global South accept behaviour from the West/US that the West/US would never accept from them is simply endorsing global subservience to the West/US. Powerful nations including the United States, don't allow foreign military threats to accumulate on their borders.

Those who suggest Russia should just accept Ukraine's NATO integration or that China should endure US navy presence in the name of "freedom and democracy" essentially advocate for unchecked Western/US influence worldwide in non-Western continents - a uni-polar world, not a multi-polar one.

The West chest beats democracy and diversity - the rule of the people (ie more than one) within their countries, but are against the existence of multiple (more than one) powers globally co-existing. Domestic democracy, foreign domination.

It's not that the West/US aren't powers or won't be (decline doesn't mean collapse), its that they're no longer the only powers on the world stage and need to acclimate to this new reality.

The West can't keep being a geopolitical titanic navigating the sea and expect other powers to remain 'contained' in dingy boats along side them, being submerged by the waves they cause with their actions.

Edited June 12 by zazen

[BlueOak]

@zazen

You can cloak war, pushing out influence, and territorial expansion in any noble sentiment you like. I used to listen to liberals say we are liberating people from dictators all the time. Now I listen to BRICS saying we are liberating people, and in your case, 'it is simply incentive driven towards sovereignty.' - That's how the authoritarians love to frame it now; they just keep pushing the borders out for what that sovereignty is. Oh, it's this map, no, it's this one; I think we'll push the lines further out this year, what can we take next year?

It's still warmongers making war for money, wealth, and power. It encourages the same; it always encourages the same cycle. People have learned nothing other than to frame it to make themselves sound better than their targets.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

I personally found this video rather helpful:

 

[zazen]

13 hours ago, BlueOak said:

@zazen

You can cloak war, pushing out influence, and territorial expansion in any noble sentiment you like. I used to listen to liberals say we are liberating people from dictators all the time. Now I listen to BRICS saying we are liberating people, and in your case, 'it is simply incentive driven towards sovereignty.' - That's how the authoritarians love to frame it now; they just keep pushing the borders out for what that sovereignty is. Oh, it's this map, no, it's this one; I think we'll push the lines further out this year, what can we take next year?

It's still warmongers making war for money, wealth, and power. It encourages the same; it always encourages the same cycle. People have learned nothing other than to frame it to make themselves sound better than their targets.

I'm not saying that Russia and China are angels. They're not. But the idea that they're a great global menace is exaggerated by the West, what they are is a threat to a fading Western hegemony that the West is trying to cling to.

London isn't the heart of empire anymore - it’s become a chrome glass erection on the Thames functioning as a laundromat for dark money from countries they morally finger wag. Neither is New York a beacon of liberty with their statue of liberty - its become the nest of financial vultures who turned made in America into owned by Wall street. Colonial Europe used to carve up Africa like a Christmas turkey - now some of their own citizens can’t even heat up a turkey and struggle to heat their homes due to a energy crises their so called ally the US has strong armed them into to enrich their own energy industries and stick it to Russia - US foreign policy cripples Europe faster than Biden can find his words.

Not to get too semantical but certain words can distort reality into something it’s not. Influence done in a healthy way is fine and natural of any power to do, but its very different from being imperial and colonial - those are both specific historical phenomena involving direct political control, economic exploitation, and cultural domination of foreign territories and peoples.

China and Russia deal within their own backyards for the most part, not across the planet. For all their faults they're generally dealing with territories they have a deep historical and cultural connection to - almost like a messy bloody family squabble or a scrap with their neighbour. Contrasted to NATO and the West who are in far flung lands they have little thread of connection to except for it being a raw exercise of power in a pursuit of resources and strategic advantage.

They may not ever claim those territories with a flag as in the past colonial era, but they sure do extract and cause carnage in them. They simply do it because they can, because they've got the biggest guns and the deepest pockets - its a assertion of power and dominance over people and places that have nothing to do with them ie the Global South.

It's the fact that the US can sanction and seize assets, that forces other countries to want to diversify and remain robust. This isn't them trying to topple the dollar purposely and to throw the West into ruin. It’s them seeing how the West behaves and responding to safeguard their own interests.

On 12/06/2024 at 10:09 AM, BlueOak said:

With the rise of BRICS countries, people are celebrating the end of millions of lives.

The West wishes to elevate itself by impeding the ascent of the global South. These are still developing nations with much poverty who wish to focus on security and development. In the case of China who are dependent on inputs of energy, food, materials etc they need land routes via Belt and Road as a contingency if things get ugly in the sea's. If it was the debt trap its made out to be 150 countries wouldn't be signed up to it. 

Last I saw, the world map read the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, not Atlanticists waters for the West to dictate and control to the point they can choke off their adversaries which they've been building up as boogeymen over decades.

The US calls China a global threat whilst floating about in the South China Sea, encircling the globe with 800 military bases, sanctioning, toppling governments, and being interventionist.  All the while cloaking all the above in moral righteousness. The West has become so skilled at doublethink and propaganda upon its own citizens that we can condemn other nations for the very crimes we commit on a daily basis, all without a hint of self-awareness.

A good video to highlight the above.

Edited June 13 by zazen

[BlueOak]

@zazen
China, Iran, BRICS, and Russia DO NOT limit their ambitions within their own borders, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Countries push their spheres of influence outward until they hit another because they are frankly incapable in their leadership of conceiving of another path forward.

Chinese Imperialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_imperialism
Belt and Road:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative

Involving 150 countries, that’s a global trading empire that is unseating the US; it's not ‘within its own borders’ at all.

Chinese control over Africa:
China is putting more arms into Africa than anyone but Russia; that’s primarily how you maintain a favorable government and indirect control over a region: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-arms-sales-cement-economic-093000334.html

Current Colonial Ambitions: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/china/china-african-loans-development-belt-and-road-intl-hnk/index.html

It maintains this control through control of industry, banking, arms dealing, establishing bases, supporting sympathetic governments, and trade. (Sound familiar?)  The moral equivalency of: Oh, America did it too, does not work when you also tell me that BRICS countries stay within their own borders. Both statements cannot be accurate at the same time.

Russian Imperialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_imperialism
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/1/24/how-western-scholars-overlooked-russian-imperialism

Russian influence on EU Elections:
https://www.politico.eu/article/voice-of-europe-russia-influence-scandal-election/
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/european-election-how-eu-says-russia-is-spreading-disinformation-2024-06-03/

This nonsense goes on all the time. Russia is always threatening to push its influence to the Atlantic ocean through Europe. Their state TV says something dumb like that every week.

Let's mention Iran, like every country on earth, tries to push its influence outward. It uses its proxy forces to achieve this, and is looking to rebuild a greater Iran (which has a few different names)

Historic Iranian Imperialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahlavi_Iran

(Now sorry to your ego)

Then, you again present a moral equivalency argument to justify warmongers. It will never hold up to a token analysis. They're flawed, so I don’t mind these other people being bad. It is just moralizing, which doesn’t mean anything beyond how you feel; it's just an excuse to behave a certain way. I used that moralizing to feel ' okay ' with some of the worst things I’ve done in my life.

Addressing BRICS imperialism is just the same as when America did it. We are morally superior for these reasons, so it is okay to do what we are doing. No war is still war; death is still death. Meddling in elections still interferring with elections. Assassination, terrorism, cyberattacks, arming suppressive governments, the rich taking from the poor, Africa being exploited, trade routes being seized and robbed blind, and generally spreading fear and misinformation are still the same as it was.

I am just looking at different people repeating the pattern. 

On the video:

Stage Green, but let’s tackle it.

Having two competing power blocks in a similar state of development, vying for world dominance, and thinking that will lead to a peaceful outcome or greater stability for the planet is equally a mind virus. Nothing about the leaders of BRICS countries shows me any capacity to think barely in ethical terms, let alone BEYOND their ethical value judgments. Their ethical value judgment will inevitably put or reflect themselves as the superior force for moral leadership and challenge anything that challenges it. – The fundamental flaw in the stage green argument.

It is by definition impossible for you to both support BRICS ethically and, at the same time, acknowledge what they are doing is morally questionable if your entire argument is morality and ethics.

I am not in America. I am in Europe. My concerns are from Europe, which is in a proxy war with BRICS, which is starting to escalate into a greater one. I do not for one second think that my own morals and ethics are superior to a Russian or you.

A hint for you, for BRICs, for anyone: 

If you allow it, now I've hit your ego; I mean this part with the best of intent: List the benefits BRICS brings and the fact that America lacked in regards to world stability and security, faith, development, economic benefits, possible long-term interoperation, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing them. Ditch the ethics and morals, and this will be more productive. The weakest part of my argument above, without extensive sourcing and thought, is addressing the global south's prosperity, but why limit your analysis to just the global south?

Trade routes and the breakdown of the global system, insurance hikes leading to increased prices everywhere, and lack of goods in stores, or technological development slowing down (which requires extensive global cooperation to advance), are obviously huge negatives I'll counter with - but that discussion would be better and more productive than this one.

Edited June 13 by BlueOak
Incorrect Link

[zazen]

9 hours ago, BlueOak said:

China, Iran, BRICS, and Russia DO NOT limit their ambitions within their own borders, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Countries push their spheres of influence outward until they hit another because they are frankly incapable in their leadership of conceiving of another path forward.

Involving 150 countries, that’s a global trading empire that is unseating the US; it's not ‘within its own borders’ at all.

This is why I wrote about how we need to be careful what words words are used as they can distort reality and mischaracterise situations. Me referring to China/Russia asserting dominance in their back yards was meant in the context of force and interventionist power plays which isn't what they do globally.

All the links you shared are correct - but in my opinion the headings and conclusions wrongly characterise those facts as being imperial and colonially ambitious. Investment, influence and interaction with countries isn't colonial exploitation, imperial expansionism or militarily interventionist in the truest sense of those words. The former are voluntary whilst the latter are forced. All countries engage with the world, thats not inherently imperialistic.

The Belt and Road initiative is a voluntary initiative where countries agree to cooperate on mutually beneficial projects. It doesn't involve the kind of coercion, annexation of territory, or direct political control that characterise historical empires. The US remains the world's largest economy and a dominant military power. The BRI represents an alternative model of economic engagement, but it exists alongside, not in place of US-led institutions and initiatives.

9 hours ago, BlueOak said:

(Now sorry to your ego)

Then, you again present a moral equivalency argument to justify warmongers. It will never hold up to a token analysis. They're flawed, so I don’t mind these other people being bad. It is just moralizing, which doesn’t mean anything beyond how you feel; it's just an excuse to behave a certain way. I used that moralizing to feel ' okay ' with some of the worst things I’ve done in my life.

Addressing BRICS imperialism is just the same as when America did it. We are morally superior for these reasons, so it is okay to do what we are doing. No war is still war; death is still death. Meddling in elections still interferring with elections. Assassination, terrorism, cyberattacks, arming suppressive governments, the rich taking from the poor, Africa being exploited, trade routes being seized and robbed blind, and generally spreading fear and misinformation are still the same as it was.

I am just looking at different people repeating the pattern. 

No ego games involved here, I'm just trying to see things as clearly as possible. I'm not trying to create moral equivalency to justify BRICS actions - I just reject double standards, mischaracterisation and exaggeration. I even started my previous post by saying China and Russia aren't angels. Modern geopolitics is not free from power imbalances and inequities - the false equivalency actually exists when we equate the pursuit of economic and strategic interests by BRICS countries with colonialism or imperialism. If using definitions in how they are operatively used and not metaphorically - BRICS are largely not patterning after Western imperialism, colonialism or war mongering. Those are problematic regardless of who perpetrates them.

Russia invading Ukraine, Hamas attacking Israel on October 7th or if China were to invade Taiwan are all wrong. It is human to condemn acts of violence, but it is wise to condemn the conditions that led to those very acts and to mitigate them. History always seems to start the very date the Western powers feel transgressed against. What is omitted is the escalatory amount of provocations that lead to the eruption of war.

The other side is gaslit for being war mongering when their own military industrial complex and vested interests have been behind the scenes churning the gears of war through think tanks and propaganda.  A pattern I see - is pushing someone into a corner despite them explicitly saying what their red lines are, then pointing fingers at them and using mass propaganda to paint them as the bad guy for trying to get out of that corner. A snapshot look at a situation will show who a clear aggressor is within a narrow slot of time (Hamas on October 7th and Russia invading Ukraine) but it would leave out the Birds Eye view context needed to shed light on the provocations that led to that point.

9 hours ago, BlueOak said:

List the benefits BRICS brings and the fact that America lacked in regards to world stability and security, faith, development, economic benefits, possible long-term interoperation, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing them. Ditch the ethics and morals, and this will be more productive. 

While the post-WW2 international system has coincided with technological progress and economic growth, the distribution of these gains has been unequal. The neoliberal economic model often benefits transnational corporations and elites at the expense of working populations, widening wealth disparities.

The West hasn't been a benevolent hegemon altruistically upholding a stable, just world order. For many in the Global South, it has meant the continuation of exploitation in different forms, with their resources extracted, economies distorted, and political sovereignty undermined to serve the interests of transnational corporations and individuals. Even within the West, the gains from globalisation have disproportionately flowed to the top while working class communities face deindustrialization and stagnant wages.

None of this is to say that a multipolar world led by the likes of China and Russia would be perfect or that Western-led institutions haven't done any good. BRICS just represents a possible vision of a multipolar world free from the predations and exploitations of unilateral US hegemony. A world where nations can chart their own course without living in fear of the latest Pentagon/CIA coup or colour revolution. 

Something to point out about BRICS is that it isn't like its the elites of the Global South conspiring this into existence - its not that simple or binary. The concept of BRICS originated from Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs which took off in the finance world to advertise emerging markets for investment. They greased the wheels of the very system of globalised capitalism that made it possible. These transnational elites and corporations aren't loyal to any nation or flag except the dollar. They're the ones who shipped the factories overseas, who stashed capital in offshore tax havens, who lobbied for the trade deals that gutted the middle class. And now that the cupboards are going bare in the West, they're looking for fresh meat in the developing world. It's about sucking the Global South dry, just like they did to the American heartland. Different latitude, same attitude.

The difference is that the global South know the value of the geopolitical cards they hold and won't let Western elites take complete hold of this transition of power which is also largely driven by demographics. Everyone wants to tap into these new veins of wealth - only this time the global South are in a position to set some terms more favourable to themselves. BRICS isn't some grand geopolitical revolution or plot, its just a pivot of power and future growth. Old certainties crumbling, new possibilities emerging.

A pluralistic, rules-based international system that respects both national sovereignty and universal human rights, with decision-making power distributed more equitably among nations is what BRICS may promise if executed well with challenges overcome. Achieving this is challenging given the complexity of reconciling divergent national interests and values. But moving towards a world with more diffused power and checks and balances, while preserving the positive elements of the liberal international order, seems like a worthy goal.

Edited June 13 by zazen

[ArcticGong]

From far right gaining seats in EU to brics😂.

2 hours ago, zazen said:

This is why I wrote about how we need to be careful what words words are used as they can distort reality and mischaracterise situations. Me referring to China/Russia asserting dominance in their back yards was meant in the context of force and interventionist power plays which isn't what they do globally.

All the links you shared are correct - but in my opinion the headings and conclusions wrongly characterise those facts as being imperial and colonially ambitious. Investment, influence and interaction with countries isn't colonial exploitation, imperial expansionism or militarily interventionist in the truest sense of those words. The former are voluntary whilst the latter are forced. All countries engage with the world, thats not inherently imperialistic.

The Belt and Road initiative is a voluntary initiative where countries agree to cooperate on mutually beneficial projects. It doesn't involve the kind of coercion, annexation of territory, or direct political control that characterise historical empires. The US remains the world's largest economy and a dominant military power. The BRI represents an alternative model of economic engagement, but it exists alongside, not in place of US-led institutions and initiatives.

No ego games involved here, I'm just trying to see things as clearly as possible. I'm not trying to create moral equivalency to justify BRICS actions - I just reject double standards, mischaracterisation and exaggeration. I even started my previous post by saying China and Russia aren't angels. Modern geopolitics is not free from power imbalances and inequities - the false equivalency actually exists when we equate the pursuit of economic and strategic interests by BRICS countries with colonialism or imperialism. If using definitions in how they are operatively used and not metaphorically - BRICS are largely not patterning after Western imperialism, colonialism or war mongering. Those are problematic regardless of who perpetrates them.

Russia invading Ukraine, Hamas attacking Israel on October 7th or if China were to invade Taiwan are all wrong. It is human to condemn acts of violence, but it is wise to condemn the conditions that led to those very acts and to mitigate them. History always seems to start the very date the Western powers feel transgressed against. What is omitted is the escalatory amount of provocations that lead to the eruption of war.

The other side is gaslit for being war mongering when their own military industrial complex and vested interests have been behind the scenes churning the gears of war through think tanks and propaganda.  A pattern I see - is pushing someone into a corner despite them explicitly saying what their red lines are, then pointing fingers at them and using mass propaganda to paint them as the bad guy for trying to get out of that corner. A snapshot look at a situation will show who a clear aggressor is within a narrow slot of time (Hamas on October 7th and Russia invading Ukraine) but it would leave out the Birds Eye view context needed to shed light on the provocations that led to that point.

While the post-WW2 international system has coincided with technological progress and economic growth, the distribution of these gains has been unequal. The neoliberal economic model often benefits transnational corporations and elites at the expense of working populations, widening wealth disparities.

The West hasn't been a benevolent hegemon altruistically upholding a stable, just world order. For many in the Global South, it has meant the continuation of exploitation in different forms, with their resources extracted, economies distorted, and political sovereignty undermined to serve the interests of transnational corporations and individuals. Even within the West, the gains from globalisation have disproportionately flowed to the top while working class communities face deindustrialization and stagnant wages.

None of this is to say that a multipolar world led by the likes of China and Russia would be perfect or that Western-led institutions haven't done any good. BRICS just represents a possible vision of a multipolar world free from the predations and exploitations of unilateral US hegemony. A world where nations can chart their own course without living in fear of the latest Pentagon/CIA coup or colour revolution. 

Something to point out about BRICS is that it isn't like its the elites of the Global South conspiring this into existence - its not that simple or binary. The concept of BRICS originated from Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs which took off in the finance world to advertise emerging markets for investment. They greased the wheels of the very system of globalised capitalism that made it possible. These transnational elites and corporations aren't loyal to any nation or flag except the dollar. They're the ones who shipped the factories overseas, who stashed capital in offshore tax havens, who lobbied for the trade deals that gutted the middle class. And now that the cupboards are going bare in the West, they're looking for fresh meat in the developing world. It's about sucking the Global South dry, just like they did to the American heartland. Different latitude, same attitude.

The difference is that the global South know the value of the geopolitical cards they hold and won't let Western elites take complete hold of this transition of power which is also largely driven by demographics. Everyone wants to tap into these new veins of wealth - only this time the global South are in a position to set some terms more favourable to themselves. BRICS isn't some grand geopolitical revolution or plot, its just a pivot of power and future growth. Old certainties crumbling, new possibilities emerging.

A pluralistic, rules-based international system that respects both national sovereignty and universal human rights, with decision-making power distributed more equitably among nations is what BRICS may promise if executed well with challenges overcome. Achieving this is challenging given the complexity of reconciling divergent national interests and values. But moving towards a world with more diffused power and checks and balances, while preserving the positive elements of the liberal international order, seems like a worthy goal.

I agree. In the long run I find it unlikely that  China and India will work closely together. 

The BRICSphobia has more to do with a point Mersheimer made about an action like beefing up the domestic army may be considered as a threat from other countries point of view. However, in essence the action may not have anything to do with foreign policy.
 

Also, the basic law of entropy applying to society that endless growth is needed or everything collapses, which is completely unsustainable. Decline for major powers is inevitable because society is a house of cards. Here, a country can take two roads, managing the internal decline or projecting and focusing on external enemies. Of course it’s easier to rally people against a foreign problem than fixing local problem that might upset donors etc.

Edited June 13 by ArcticGong
Added some points.

[Ajay0]

On 6/13/2024 at 2:28 AM, BlueOak said:

@zazen

It's still warmongers making war for money, wealth, and power. 

Okay, but western military industrial complex and defense company shareholders have also benefitted from the war as share values have rocketed sky high due to demand for weapons. 

https://theprint.in/defence/russia-ukraine-war-a-gold-mine-for-us-british-defence-firms-sales-rocket-stock-prices-soar/2056134/

Quote

 

The last two years have been good for US and UK-based aerospace and defence manufacturers as stock prices have grown, companies announced large-share buybacks and revenue shot up manifold with new orders placed after Washington’s new funding for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific.

The four largest US-based firms, Lockheed Martin, RTX Corporation, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics, and the UK’s BAE Systems — which has a US subsidiary that manufactures the M777 ultra lightweight howitzers — have all posted strong financial returns after Russian troops entered Ukraine as part of its “special military operation” on 24 February, 2022.

 

 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Speaking of BRICS, Saudi Arabia has just left the Petro Dollar agreement.

[Basman]

On 12/06/2024 at 11:40 AM, Abe27 said:

Hey hey, us danes took the left turn this time!

I think the recent shift of the Social Democratic party to becoming more right-leaning has pushed voters more left. I'm not too educated on current affairs but removing a holiday, downsizing education, tax cuts for top earners, and not to mention the whole mink thing, among others, I can see people shifting away from the right as it is not serving their best interests.

[Basman]

It is disappointing to me because I believe right-wing governments tend to in general be less functional than left-wing governments but it is not surprising. The war in Ukraine, economic uncertainty and immigration seem to push people to the right. It could also perhaps be seen as a cyclical thing as we internationally been moving left politically the last 10-20 years.

[LSD-Rumi]

I was disgusted by the comments that I was seeing everywhere on Youtube. The expressions used were very apathic.

When people start living less lavish life style, they stop caring about others.

 

[Abe27]

@Basman Yes, very well reed i see. The social democrafts in practice the last couple of years have almost only done right leaning actions.

The Socialist People's Party is much more like the democrafts used to be like. It's very strange

[Basman]

7 minutes ago, Abe27 said:

@Basman Yes, very well reed i see. The social democrafts in practice the last couple of years have almost only done right leaning actions.

The Socialist People's Party is much more like the democrafts used to be like. It's very strange

My theory is that the Social Democrats wish to capitalize on the aging population. Mette Fredriksen comes of as a savy business woman more than anything else. Very much a career politician. That kind of demeanor can be good for finding solutions to complex problems (she handled Covid well for the most part compared to other countries), but it comes with the downside of not truly having a vision for society based on conscious development. She seems stuck in stage Orange. That is my perspective though.

[Abe27]

@Basman Most likely.

From a young persons perspective it's sad to see what the current goverment is doing to the country. Many older people belive the social democrats to be the ideal party in the middel, since it was back in the old days. I belive when i get old many will have the same perspective i have, and never forgive the social democrats for what they did.

Scandinavia handlet covid well, i think it has less to do with her and more to do with the culture and overall political system. It seems quite clear that she did some major mistakes, but luckly no one person can have so much control to make the mistakes to meaningfull.

[ArcticGong]

Everyday I notice the conversation at work, on the streets getting more right. I’m an immigrant myself, but people don’t censor around me, and I don’t wanna be bothered about it anymore while basically not countering it anymore. It was actually kind of predictable that people would react this way about immigration. People blame EU for the immigration problem which is inaccurate.