So you're saying Sun Yat-sen was financed by the Anglos?
Because Mao sure as hell wasn't. First thing he did was bomb British ships and confiscate their wealth in China.
BRICS & New World Order Thread
- Thread starter Strangelove
- Start date
Because Mao sure as hell wasn't. First thing he did was bomb British ships and confiscate their wealth in China.
No. I said they financed wars and revolutions in rival territory regardless of their ideologies and beliefs to weaken and control enemies. From nazis in Ukraine to ISIS in Midde East, and Marxists in Europe and Russia.
In China they only needed to engage in the Opium Wars and occupy the main Chinese ports and cities for 100 years to prevent China from updating and competing in time.
But in Russia the Marxist revolution was engaged with Western money, providing weapons for revolutionaries to create the ill-fated USSR and prevent the Russian Empire from evolving over time into a new German Empire. Soviet mismanagement and collapse of the USSR ensured total American hegemony so far China managed to become a competitor, but China only achieved this by abandoning the failed pure Marxist economic logic that never managed to go beyond the USSR, Cuba and North Korea, with weapons but stagnant and isolated.
But German Empire, whether monarchy or Nazi, was never a real threat to the US or British since they couldn't effectively project power. The Soviets stopped the Germans and conquered half their country. They were just put under full sanctions after Germany mauled them in WW2.
Yes. Germany was industrialized but poor in natural resources, thus limited. Therefore preventing Russia from having a sustainable and politically stable industrialization was a priority for the Anglos. And since a union of interests between Russia and Germany would be fatal to Anglo dominance, ensuring that Russians and Germans fought on opposing sides was the foundation of British and later American foreign policy in the 19th and early 20th century.
It was a repeat of previous situations. The British also ensured that Bourbon France fought the Austrian and Spanish Habsburgs and while mainland Europe wasted its resources fighting each other, the British Empire and its pirates advanced.
The Anglos just copy the instructions of the Roman Empire: divide et impera.
Anglo politics will do everything to divide the BRICS and remain hegemonic now.
The world has changed.
One reason for the BRICS, and recent rush to join by other developing countries, this is a chance to get away from the Washington Consensus.
The current BRICS countries may not agree on much, but one point is certain, no American influence is wanted. No one in BRICS want Washington calling the shots.
The only realistic way the Americans can undermine the BRICS is to demonstrate how well their Western policies can work, like the austerity of the Washington Consensus.
Of course, the austerity is to be applied only on the developing countries. When a crisis hits America, then Captain America Jerome comes to the recuse with his printing press.
This business of Macron attending the BRICS meeting, and dialoguing with Putin if he shows, contrary to some court order, it is probably clear that all members present would view that as a side show.
The world has changed.
This statement is only right when you take out all the essential differences. In a way it is like saying a piece of toufu is not too different from a brick because of the shape. The only thing that matters in comparison is "science is fact based, while religion is not".
Russia does not want Macron to join the BRICS meeting in South Africa.
The original source from TASS
On the one hand, Russia is right that France did not make any room for itself to maneuver away from the unti-Russian position it has taken, so Macron's joining isn't appropriate without any softening tones beforehand.
On the other hand, Macron's joining can be propagated to the world as the sign of France's difference and departure from Washington's position. It is a begining and open crack of the western camp. So having Macron in South Africa is a good thing even for Russia. Even Xi has met Blinken after all the US provocation without any visible gain by China. Some times it is better to have a thicker skin (for Russia) to make a gain, rejecting a "surrender" of a minor "enemy" isn't wise.
The original source from TASS
On the one hand, Russia is right that France did not make any room for itself to maneuver away from the unti-Russian position it has taken, so Macron's joining isn't appropriate without any softening tones beforehand.
On the other hand, Macron's joining can be propagated to the world as the sign of France's difference and departure from Washington's position. It is a begining and open crack of the western camp. So having Macron in South Africa is a good thing even for Russia. Even Xi has met Blinken after all the US provocation without any visible gain by China. Some times it is better to have a thicker skin (for Russia) to make a gain, rejecting a "surrender" of a minor "enemy" isn't wise.
Another misconception. West cooperated with the Soviets in individual terms. Ford per example after the revolution established. West cleptocracy found it's strategic opponent in Marxism because...it is. Do you find any explanation why the Entente intervened at the foundings of USSR? 14 countries attacked the ongoing revolution. No, they never wanted to cooperate with the Soviets. Do you know why holy alliance formed despite their deadly heatred between them members? Why the Hoover purges, marshall plan, why the purge of US Communists, Panthers etc. Why the blocade to Cuba, N Korea etc? Their is no answer following your logic. USSR was 1/6 of the globe plus allies,so, stagnant and isolated is a bit overstatement. Mismanaged, i would agree, but it's a loooong conversation. The country that managed to be the other one superpower and a constant trouble for the west till nowdays, i don't think was so weak. Both in material and intellectual terms.
It was done for basically the same reason why every major power in Europe attacked France after the revolution. The existing powers in Europe were scared that the Communist movement in Russia would spread in Europe. Then there is the fact the Tsars of Russia were related to the British royal family. Try looking at pictures of George V and Nicholas II. It was also perceived by Western powers that the Bolsheviks were allied with the German Empire after the Treaty of Brest Litovsk.
Marxism isn't science. It's based on Marx's theories, which didn't quite work out so well when put into practice. Why do you think there is no country left pursuing Marxist economics? Making policy in reference to a "sacred" text, whether that's the US constitution, the bible or Das Kapital is really not that different. Ideology is inflexible. Pragmatic countries can adapt their policies to the reality that they find in the world.
China has shed ideological politics and is now able to work with absolute monarchies, military dictatorships and various types of republics and democracies. Meanwhile you can observe the West losing its ability to cooperate with countries that don't subscribe to western values and implement western style democracy. The western ideology is actually quite a bit like religion as well, they're trying to convert everyone and launch holy wars against others. A bit like how in Marxist times, communist states would try to convert everyone else and spread the great proletarian revolution