Belarus, Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Iraq, Syria and the Stans! With North Korea (NK) now being brought into the fold, with what looks like a quite deep alliance with Russia, the new BRINCISSTAN stretches from the border of Israel to the border of South Korea. The latter now knows that its neighbour has the backing of Russia, aligning the large NK military industrial complex with that of Russia, and must be careful in how much it aligns with its US “friends”. This move will also concern the Japanese, who now may possibly have the arsenal of North Korea aimed at it if it facilitates any US military aggression against China.
One other aspect of this matter is that the war in korea is actually between the DPKR and the UN. That at least is my recollection and the fact that the armistice has not led to a peace treaty, and an end to the economic war against the people of the North, is a reflection of the long dominance of the US over the UN.
BRICS signals a challenge to that dominance, just as multipolarity, and the idea of returning to a rule of law in international relations also coincides with the development of BRICS.
There is a reminder today of the claims being advanced- by Brazil and India, for permanent membership of the UNSC- a claim likely to win the support of both Russia and China. This in turn implies a revaluation of the memberships of both the UK and France on the Security Council, and raises the intriguing possibility that it would be eminently rational of the US to side with the Indian and Latin American claims, perhaps throwing its old allies, now reduced, thanks to their submissiveness, to little more than seconding US initiatives, under the bus.
It has been clear for some time that the UN has to choose between complete irrelevance or change,. And that any change will be uncomfortable for the US and its complacent satraps.
It's time there was a Peace Treaty and a return to the idea of re-unification in Korea. If the UN won't take the first steps then BRICS will have to, with the inclusion of south Korea in a bloc to which its industry and strategic posuion could bring so much.
It was a UNSC without the Soviets (they were boycotting it at the time) and with Taiwan instead of China. So really the US and their allies/vassals. No such imperialist crap can happen now with Russia and China there. The UK and France should be kicked out of their permanent membership given their small size and replaced with Brazil and India. Of course, they will not.
So governance will move away from the UN as you say, but I think that the SCO may play more of a role than BRICS. The S is a neoliberal wonderland, the I always trying to balance, and the B run by a guy disciplined by the elites. Also the SCO is much more about Eurasia, and that is where the real challenge to the imperialist West lies.
"...the new BRINCISSTAN stretches from the border of Israel to the border of South Korea."
Once again, it's time for Bibi to "fish, or cut-bait". IOW, given the huge Russian and ethno-Russian(Ukranian) Israeli population -- as well as Israel's strong trade-and-technology ties with China and India (the latter now owns the Port of Haifa) AND (what's left of) the "Abraham Accords" -- it might be a Good Idea for Israel to (re)orient itself more fully North-East and East.
I think that the Israeli's (Zionists) may actually get more and more extreme as it becomes apparent that their settler colonialist apartheid regime is not tenable in the long term. Their anger will know no bounds. You can see this with the recent turn to a more outright fascist regime, even against the majority wishes of the Jewish population. The Zionist extremists are on the same level as ISIS.
One other aspect of this matter is that the war in korea is actually between the DPKR and the UN. That at least is my recollection and the fact that the armistice has not led to a peace treaty, and an end to the economic war against the people of the North, is a reflection of the long dominance of the US over the UN.
BRICS signals a challenge to that dominance, just as multipolarity, and the idea of returning to a rule of law in international relations also coincides with the development of BRICS.
There is a reminder today of the claims being advanced- by Brazil and India, for permanent membership of the UNSC- a claim likely to win the support of both Russia and China. This in turn implies a revaluation of the memberships of both the UK and France on the Security Council, and raises the intriguing possibility that it would be eminently rational of the US to side with the Indian and Latin American claims, perhaps throwing its old allies, now reduced, thanks to their submissiveness, to little more than seconding US initiatives, under the bus.
It has been clear for some time that the UN has to choose between complete irrelevance or change,. And that any change will be uncomfortable for the US and its complacent satraps.
It's time there was a Peace Treaty and a return to the idea of re-unification in Korea. If the UN won't take the first steps then BRICS will have to, with the inclusion of south Korea in a bloc to which its industry and strategic posuion could bring so much.
It was a UNSC without the Soviets (they were boycotting it at the time) and with Taiwan instead of China. So really the US and their allies/vassals. No such imperialist crap can happen now with Russia and China there. The UK and France should be kicked out of their permanent membership given their small size and replaced with Brazil and India. Of course, they will not.
So governance will move away from the UN as you say, but I think that the SCO may play more of a role than BRICS. The S is a neoliberal wonderland, the I always trying to balance, and the B run by a guy disciplined by the elites. Also the SCO is much more about Eurasia, and that is where the real challenge to the imperialist West lies.
yes - turkey is the 64,000 dollar question here, isn't it? thanks roger!
Again, excellent visionary analysis. Those who know history have the future..!
"...the new BRINCISSTAN stretches from the border of Israel to the border of South Korea."
Once again, it's time for Bibi to "fish, or cut-bait". IOW, given the huge Russian and ethno-Russian(Ukranian) Israeli population -- as well as Israel's strong trade-and-technology ties with China and India (the latter now owns the Port of Haifa) AND (what's left of) the "Abraham Accords" -- it might be a Good Idea for Israel to (re)orient itself more fully North-East and East.
I think that the Israeli's (Zionists) may actually get more and more extreme as it becomes apparent that their settler colonialist apartheid regime is not tenable in the long term. Their anger will know no bounds. You can see this with the recent turn to a more outright fascist regime, even against the majority wishes of the Jewish population. The Zionist extremists are on the same level as ISIS.