There is an impression growing into belief that the new meanings of the foreign policy of the global “powers” is mostly a combined use of brutal processes and parallel intensification of confrontation. The apologists of the “new world order” have recently proposed a manageable stability but the representatives of the leftist, as well as partly the right conservative projects preferred rejecting this paradigm and have run into low-predictability perspective of local wars which transform to a permanent global confrontation. Certain groups that continue, despite the existing financial problems, to initiate the promotion of the global project of Atlanticism, are trying to save the previous format of the Western society through setting up the North Atlantic market, and possibly currencies. The issues relating to the leading currencies in the world have not been resolved, the geopolitical perspectives of the West, as well as anti-terrorist fight which is acquiring new approaches and ideologies at every stage have not been worked out. The relations with the Arab and other Islamic countries remain unclear. NATO does not envisage ultimately new enlargement programs but plans to develop cooperation with the countries of Asia Pacific. Apparently, somewhere behind the curtain of the George Bush administration’s activities, certain think tanks suggested that all kinds of “reloading” approaches may be viewed as a “breathing space” on the eve of a new global attack on the Old World with the support of diverse and unexpected partners, definite guarantees of security must be proposed in return for partial loyalty. Hence, the brutality as such is supported and initiated, whereas the confrontation is used as a means of observing the balance of force in the world and in specific regions. At the same time, doubts occur that the “new confrontation” is just a tactics, and in reality a new paradigm of governing chaos is coming up. Generally, is a global policy based on total but manageable brutality possible? Apparently, there is a belief that it is possible, or it appears as spread signs of something incomprehensible. In addition, an attempt is made to instill in the massive consciousness that the alternative to a global brutality and confrontation is a nuclear war or a total fight with global terrorism. What are the targets of global brutality? Anyone but China. China is a special item and a lot relating to this item remains in the waiting and analyzing mode. For its part, China is not in a hurry to become involved in a global discussion on negating the past perceptions about the new global order. The targets are clear: Turkey, Russia, the France-Germany tandem, possibly India and Israel, as well as Brazil. As we can see, the geography of targets is large but a large zone is outlining in the West-East-South framework to which different approaches and goals will apply. This zone with its resistance and sham expansion will permanently stir vast regions. In addition, it is hard to predict the future of these countries. On the other hand, the target differs from the target. In this case, Russia is not a partner and cannot be one, it is seen as a dangerous and marginal state headed for its death. At present the ruling elites in Turkey and Russia appear to be the best fit from the point of view of their involvement in brutal confrontation processes. These elites believe that they are the component and legitimate parts of global elites but in reality they are just bound to one another though the length of the leach is not known. Someone is tying Turkey and Russia to each other and to the same complex issue. This is expected to lead to close cooperation between these countries, and their elites believe that they are doing good. Global brutality and confrontation cannot unfold successfully without the participation of several strong regional powers in their spatial expansion taking different forms. Who are their partners? Again, Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and strangely, Poland and Romania (this is conventional). However, in order not to go for political exotics, one should note that this policy is impossible without a combination of the interests of leading banks, oil, raw material and defense industries. However, there are signs that this alliance has already been set up. At some point these economic operators started behaving strangely under unidentified motives and interests. Sometimes the Americans are surprised at different wordings but when they start discussing analogical topics, similarity in these definitions occurs. The global brutality is not only planned. It is also spontaneous, and the countries which cannot get adjusted to these processes will either die or leave the scene. The United States and NATO have created a stable system of prosperity and security, and everything that is outside the borders of this world is subject to brutality, even systemic brutality. The United States and NATO are not well-off but this system is living through a global chaos and will expand its actions over the entire world. The countries that are under Russia’s influence will be subject to collapse and catastrophe, poverty and extreme forms of marginality. In Armenia there are a lot of idiots who think otherwise, there one should nether listen to them or enter into discussions with them, they should be ignored in the worst possible way, such as infection.
What's Awaiting Countries Under Russian Influence?
- Comments - 04 August 2016, 14:29