The UK is a tiny fat coward on an island. They were always afraid to get involved in major wars. The UK hasn't seen the type of direct confrontation that Russia, Germany, Poland or Turkey (or Turkey's adversaries) have. The UK is a "comfortable great power" pushing buttons in isolation. The don't dare to take on anyone with big muscles. John Bull is quite a coward. Today in the 21st century they certainly are. What is NATO? It is an alliance of states. There is no "NATO force somewhere", so if Russia attacks Poland, then NATO=Poland. Get it? No, really! If Russia attacks Estonia, then I would be very curious to see whether any Brittocks or Yanks would risk their lives for anyone else. No-one will risk their asses against the Russian bear in a direct confrontation. Or, if they would, then the entire alliance (multiple countries) would have to be pressured/forced to act together and risk their lives for the other one. At this time I just don't see the mega-coward French die for Poland. Imagine a small country like Slovenia risking their lives on the battlefields or any other NATO country. Europe is a bunch of egoist countries. Everyone for themselves only. The colonial powers are only pushing the buttons. They should have protected Eastern Europe from the Soviets 70 years ago. But it was Churchill (beer-belly) who sold Eastern Europe to the Soviets. So, why should NATO do anything for any weak, eastern member? Remember NATO=Poland, NATO=Lithuania, NATO=Bulgaria. One-by-one alone. They are too cowards to act together and help each other out with massive determination. Although, that would be ideal. Russia would eat them all one-by-one like a grizzly bear sitting on top of a waterfall, waiting for the fish to swim up to his mount, one-by-one... Russia is not the Soviet Union, but they can cause harm, especially if NATO is weak. But I doubt that they would want a conflict, because it would cripple their economy. They also cannot control a huge country like Ukraine. Let alone, the entire Europe where almost everyone hates them. I see the US and Turkey and China winning from any European conflict. The entire Europe loses, but especially the east. What you are saying there is WORLD WAR III! If either China or Russia starts a war, then the other one will also do their thing. And the world (meaning: the colonial powers, USA included) will not even dare say anything. We are living in an age, when the words have no weight. "Democracy", "human rights", "dictatorship", "preemptive strike", "crisis", "sanctions", "the UN", "discrimination", "racism", "rights" are all worthless Lego bricks being thrown around by infantile seniles like Biden. The words have lost heir meanings due to so many false accusations, exacerbations, exaggerations and lies. Now no-one knows what to believe. Even I am not sure what to believe. Regardless, from all we've discussed here, even if the entire Eurasia will fight on both ends, the only winner is the US. I think it is the interest of the US to create turmoil in Asia and Europe. All these conflicts are being orchestrated everywhere by them. Which countries has hundreds of bases in Asia and Europe? Which country's politicians created, funded and instigated 453,782 wars (joke) on the continent? Which country is in direct competition in resources/technology/economy/military with the EU/Russia/China/Japan/Middle East etc.? Perhaps the evil plan is for the US to remain a global superpower and set Eurasia ablaze. Then send "peacekeepers" to collect the oil, gas...
Fuel prices in Australia will be $2.55 per litre for regular E10 by the end of the week. That's my useless prediction.
China will emerge as saviour of Germany in the end, so the biggest losers are still Russians. The current Russian leadership is good at tricks, but overall strategy is a failure. It's like making $1k on bitcoin, but lose $100k on shitcoin and then goating about the $1k you made using the media you control, while covering up the $100k losses. Reputation of a country is more important than hypersonic missiles and piles of gold. Chinese can switch their ideology as quickly as they switch their names to American names. The KMT which controlled Taiwan were autocrats and even allied with the Nazis. China is communist today, but they can also easily change to American style oligarchy tomorrow and ally with the WEF.
people were fighting at the pump in UK not long ago, high price but lack of truck drivers, short of fuel
Russia has $5 billions dollars in cash including other currencies, this is the immunity they were talking about prepared for the sanctions, we have to wait for their counter sanctions those soldiers that move to their border should be individually sanctions too, those EU mp too lol etc time to slow down the gas flow, to put price presure on the EU markets lol the wheel is in your hand
The World Economic Forum (WEF), a “nonprofit” private organization started (in 1971) and headed by Klaus “You will own nothing and be happy” Schwab and his family. This is a private organization that has no official bearing with any world governance body, despite the implication of the name. It could just as well have been called the “Church of Schwabies.” The WEF was the origin of the “Great Reset” and I would guess that it was the origin of “Build Back Better” Source : Roger Koops article
Haha, way to duck a question Interesting to see who is involved with the WEF Also from the Roger Koop article I quoted earlier... Many, many more behind the Collapse/Great Reset
I wouldn’t read too much into the WEF stuff. Think of it like a think tank. It doesn’t set policy, politicians pandering to special interest groups in an attempt to win votes set policy.
I would. I've seen the interview where Schwaub boasts about having infiltrated numerous countries governments with members of his young leaders program. They may not set policy, but they set agenda's. And if he has enough members in government he can do both. I'd say the WEF is possibly the largest of the special interest groups. They represent just about every major corporation in the world today.
I can't argue with any of the policies that they're seeking to promote, climate, health, biodiversity, energy use, racism, human rights etc, they're all topics we need to address and the best way of doing it currently is with public/private dialogue within a capitalist system. As opposed to what he terms "shareholder" capitalism where profits come first or State capitalism which entrusts decisions to governments.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ou...side-there-something-fishy-about-great-reset/ The real Great Reset The magic words are ‘stakeholder capitalism’, a concept that WEF chairman Klaus Schwab has been hammering for decades and which occupies pride of place in the WEF’s Great Reset plan from June 2020. The idea is that global capitalism should be transformed so that corporations no longer focus solely on serving shareholders but become custodians of society by creating value for customers, suppliers, employees, communities and other ‘stakeholders’. The way the WEF sees stakeholder capitalism being carried out is through a range of ‘multi-stakeholder partnerships’ bringing together the private sector, governments and civil society across all areas of global governance. The idea of stakeholder capitalism and multi-stakeholder partnerships might sound warm and fuzzy, until we dig deeper and realise that this actually means giving corporations more power over society, and democratic institutions less. -- Who are these other, non-governmental stakeholders? The WEF, best known for its annual meeting of high-net-worth individuals in Davos, Switzerland, describes itself as an international organization for public-private cooperation. WEF partners include some of the biggest companies in oil (Saudi Aramco, Shell, Chevron, BP), food (Unilever, The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé), technology (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple) and pharmaceuticals (AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna). Instead of corporations serving many stakeholders, in the multi-stakeholder model of global governance, corporations are promoted to being official stakeholders in global decision-making, while governments are relegated to being one of many stakeholders. In practice, corporations become the main stakeholders, while governments take a backseat role, and civil society is mainly window dressing.
So suddenly the free market is not the best solution any more? Opendemocracy is a bit leftie at a glance.
Did you miss the bit about less democracy? Future under WEF's vision looks like serfdom for the unwashed and poor masses, not a very liberal prospect. Imo. At least they're transparent about it: "You'll own nothing".
I've talked at some length about the flaws in democracy here: https://www.silverstackers.com/foru...acy-by-frank-karsten-and-karel-beckman.52275/ and how an anarcho-capitalist system would better provide for the needs of all. I've moved a little left from that proposition back to a minarchist position. That's about the only thing that opponents of the WEF seem to focus on.
