Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "DW News"
channel.
-
6
-
6
-
Geopolitics links what they are discussing here, to the big picture.
There is a fracture zone between the big global players (USA/EU, Russia, China) running from the North Pole, through the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, via the Caucasus, Iran, and towards Israel. Another fracture zone is the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa (incl. Israel), from there through India, SE Asia (incl. Vietnam), through Taiwan, the Koreas, Japan, Taiwan, back up to the North Pole.
Expect Washington DC, either in collaboration with a NATO state, or tacidly nodded off by the EU, to instigate crises and wars EVERYWHERE on these "fracture zones," because it is the only way they can hang on the the good ol' days a bit longer: their role of the hegemon of the world, and that of the American Century.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Chuanese I'm afraid it is far more complicated that simply looking at economic ties, or trade.
Because if one studies history, one notices how there are similar geopolitical implications when trying to "cordon off" rivals in a military or "alliances" manner...
In the late-19th Century, France fought back against the German attempts to isolate it politically, by cordoning off Germany and the Central Powers with a ring of alliance partners.
France, in the west, a hostile Russia in the east.
GB's RN in the position to cut off the north, in case of war, joined later. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece).
Before WW1, things like cultural exchanges, or trade carried on pretty normally. Most people alive at the time "felt" nothing extraordinary in their daily life.
Today, we see a similar strategy concerning China.
Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia [yup, "collusion" in some form or other is real. Geopolitics almost dictates it to be true], would cut off the north-west/north-east. A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there.
That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea. The Sprattly Islands...
History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes.
Encircling a rival with a ring of alliance partners is the typical strategy of those who wish to rule the world.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Nice exchange.
The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal.
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
5
-
Spot on.
There was no testing.
For weeks the virus was allowed to spread, and the complacency at this point was blatant.
It was even called out at the time so nobody can say the Trump admin and other countries didn't screw up.
Trump, for example, just now said that he was "cheerleading", thereby practically admitting that he was trying to gloss over the danger the USA was in at the time he was downplaying it, by distracting the American people with dumb bs...
Look at South Korea.
They implemented a plan right from the start...test, isolate, test again, isolate, test again and again, isolate, repeat, repeat, repeat...
Now that's what I call a plan.
5
-
@chippewaguy4193 Not even the "hindsight" excuse is valid.
In reality it was a lack of foresight, and sheer stupidity.
Because interestingly at the same time as German industrialisation after their 1871 unification, there was another "power" concurrently rising on the other side of the Atlantic.
Concerning "the biggest picture of all", aka "geopolitics", they too, were in the advantageous position of a having geographical advantage. Only this time, the rise of technology (steam trains, railways, steam ships, turbines, etc.) at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th Century, meant that the geographical advantages the American Century enjoyed, would eventually surpass the geographical advantage of the rather narrow English Channel.
Similarly to London concerning the continent...
[Search for: Splendid_isolation]
...Washington DC could similarly innocently claim to be "just isolating" themselves, while at the same time gaining from the mistakes of other less "isolatable" European powers...
The world was M-A-I-N after all, so why not? :-)
After WW1 and especially WW2, Washington DC was now in the same situation as GB was pre-WW1. The Atlantic as a "barrier" between the Americas and Europe, had supplanted (in importance) the English Channel as the barrier between GB and the continent.
They had the political "leverage" to impose a favorable geopolitical situation for themselves.
After 100 years of playing "balancing games" with the continent, the British Empire became a victim of their own "game".
That isn't "hindsight".
More like sheer ignorance, stupidity, arrogance of power, misuse of a geographical advantage, short-sightedness...
And if you give me a few more minutes, I can come up with a few more terms...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@not today Just like prior to WW1 there are 2 major geopolitical historical events unfolding.
One is the US wish to attack and carry out a regime change in Iran, which Moscow opposes (google the New Silk Road or Belt Initiative, the "southern prong" of which goes through Iran, and the Persian Gulf)
The second is encircling China.
Yup.
The geopolitics of trying to "cordon off" rivals are strikingly similar. Before WW1, it was France/Russia trying to cordoning off Germany/Austria-Hungary (Central Powers) with a ring of alliance partners.
France, in the west, a hostile Russia in the east.
GB's RN in the position to cut off the north, in case of war, closed the gap to the north in 1907. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece).
Today, we see a similar strategy concerning China.
Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia [yup, "collusion" in some form or other is real. Geopolitics almost dictates it to be true], would cut off the north-west/north-east. A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there.
That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea. The Sprattly Islands...
History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5