Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is simply not true. US imported gas to Europe costs four times as much as on the other side of the Atlantic angering many EU countries. Cutting off Russian gas and being forced to import from other nations aswell as invest in alternative means is costing Europe significantly. Remember we are talking about a Europe that is now almost economically stagnant. As i said these have HURT the west more so than it has hurt Russia because it is Europe that is in a more vulnerable position than Russia economically which whether you like it or not is doing very well and is expected to do so over the coming years if we look at the IMF. Of course events can quickly change that. Russia might have lost it's share of the Western market but all this is doing is pushing them into closer partnership with their own allies who all want to become independent eventually of US influence.
As for how well an economy is doing or how healthy it is. This isn't at all irrelevant to this discussion. GDP is largely an indicator of a nation's power. Why on earth therefore would we be discussing wage strength? Germans might enjoy a higher standard of living than China but China has more influence in Global affairs and is significantly more powerful. Also you seem to imply people's wage strength as being the main indicator of having a high standard of living but that is not true. Ireland and Germany in terms of standard of living are both identical which is a much more significant factor in looking at how well not just an economy of a nation functions but the health of it's social and political structure. Many G7 nations such as the US and UK do very poor in this regard due to severe inequality
The outlook for the Russian economy is quite good however your outlook for how Russia will look after the war, similar to after it's war in Afghanistan and the US after Vietnam might be true as every nation experiences this after a long and costly war but long term i don't see this weakening Russia just as it didn't the US.
As for claiming Russia is in dire straits, this propaganda by the West needs to stop. Even when we are losing we still claim we are winning. Let me tell you the reality. Russia has invaded a large portion of Eastern Europe, Ukraine and as now is now pushing further into this nation which is the largest in all of Europe. Russia is fighting against a Ukraine that has been supplied by almost every western nation on earth with state of the art weaponry and billions of dollars of equipment and funding. Russia won't lose this territory because even the west now accepts Ukraine just won't be able to push Russia back, at best all Ukraine will be able to do is negotiate and cede a large portion of it's territory. Therefore the reality is it isn't Russia that is in dire straits, it is Europe which has lost a large section of it's territory in the last several decades to Russia. Also i don't want to hear how Ukraine isn't in Nato or the EU. It's in Europe. Europe is in dire straits. Economically stagnant and losing territory to a nation getting stronger by the day. That's the reality.
It certainly does cost Europe in the short term, but it's not Europe that asked for Russia to invade Ukraine, and the repercussions of doing nothing and emboldening Russia in its expansionist plans is projected to be far more costly. This was similar to in 2014 when the decision was to have only mild rebukes to Russia with the idea that perhaps it will be sufficient--which Russia then showed it was not. The idea that it hasn't hurt Russia more economically is completely false. GDP in terms of expenditures for Russia are up via heavy deficit spending on military materiel which does not improve Russia's economic position or its quality of life. It's taking that via selling its fossil fuel resources at a discounted price, but fossil fuel resources are not renewable and becomes increasingly more difficult and costly to extract as the more easily extractable portions of it are tackled first. They're basically short-changing themselves now for something that will have large economic repercussions in the near future and for at least the medium term.
You also seem to forget that the last major foreign invasion the Russia state was involved in was in Afghanistan in the late 70s to the close of the 80s--it ended in regime collapse and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and a change in government within Russia. Invading at your borders and deficient spending a massive amount of your GDP and industrial production going towards an offensive war while your most powerful neighbor gets busy on your former sphere of influence is perhaps not a particularly great long-term strategy. Do you have any idea how large of a change in practice China's summits with Central Asian countries without Russia is?
Meanwhile, Europe is going through an expensive but ultimately beneficial energy transition and diversification strategy that can allow them to generate more of their own energy needs and allows them to not dependent on any single producer.
You understand that the amount of funding and military materiel given to Ukraine is a tiny fraction of the GDPs and total war materiel of NATO and its constituent members, right? Do you have any idea of what the scale difference is? Do you want to take a crack at it, because you're making it sound like it's a significant amount when it is nothing even close to that. Take a wild guess on how much Russia's GDP and government spending is attributed to the war and how much of NATO country members GDP and government spending are attributed to the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy234
I never said ten years ago wasn't relevant. I said it wasn't relevant to the next ten years in which it is predicted to grow by the IMF. Even the next 5 years it is expected to grow. Even in the next year it will have grown. My point is that the past ten years of a nation's growth isn't a indicator of the next ten years. I shouldn't have to explain this any clearer.
As for you living in Taiwan and China. Your experience in Taiwan isn't relevant and as for me being under the illusion that BRICS is a coherent force, i never claimed it was a coherent force so your arguing with a strawman. I claimed which you may disagree with is that the desire for nations to cut itself off from the reliance on the US dollar and US international policy is increasing to such an extent that these nations are cooperating together through BRICS which will only strengthen their relationships with one another in a new multi polar world. One would have to be delusional to not see closer partnership emerging.
Is this an American thing? I'd love to know how do you guys perceive the world today. Do you even know the state of Europe at the moment with the emerging refugee and economic crisis plaguing it aswell as losing a portion of it's territory on a daily basis to Russia? I find it disrespectful as a westerner that some Americans are still in denial at this point of the shift in Global power because they alone are still powering along. While BRICS is certainly still not able to compete with the G7 yet apart from militarily, economically it is expected to by many mainstream economists and with that economic reliance with each other comes close cooperation. The EU wasn't built in a day, neither will BRICS as a Coherent group
Why are you lying? Here's the quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy234
I don't care about 10 ten years previous. I'm talking about today and tomorrow.
As for the US can hold the G7 up. No it can't as China and India combined is set to have a higher GDP than the entire G7 combined including the US in 20 years
As for China's growth is on a terminal decline, again this is nonsense. The IMF over the next 5 years has China's economically dropping a percent before stabilizing. 3% growth of a $20 trillion dollar economy by that stage is something i doubt the US would be capable of never mind every other developed nation.
As for claiming many Bric countries hate each other. That is irrelevant. Less than a century ago the G7 were at war with each other. What matters is how they move forward in close cooperation and increasingly many dislike and are creating an alternative world order that isn't dominated by US interests. This has become something that is Unifying all those in Bric together. This much should be evident given Russia's economic growth amidst the economic sanctions by the west. In reality these sanctions only hurt the west especially Europe more than it hurt Russia. That's where we are at in the world.
You are unable to stay internally consistency. It's one thing to be misinformed, but it's another to just be incompetent or mendacious.
Being in China and Taiwan does matter a lot in understanding the situation as China is the de facto major player within BRICS. You sound like countless numbers of clueless people within a monolingual Anglosphere bubble. Probably because you are. It doesn't help to have a bad information diet and to be incompetent enough to lack internal consistency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy234
The largest indicator the US/Western dominance has come to an end will be if BRICS nations can finally achieve creating it's own currency and ending the reliance on the US dollar. Whether it comes to pass is another thing but if it does no-one can be under any illusion we are living in a multi-polar world.
Globally, there's been an ending reliance on the US dollar for the last few decades as the dollar was at an all-time high point right after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and before major economic reforms especially within China and countries that were formerly modelling some of their economic system more towards that of the Soviet Union. The USSR's dissolution shook a lot of faith in that model, and that made for a very rapid rise in economic heft for a lot of places. The advent of the Euro and the economic rise of China and hence the RMB has made both of these very popular as foreign reserve currencies. I think you're completely misunderstanding BRICS though and do not seem to understand that its constituent members cannot collectively get closer. They can certainly form bilateral alliances with other countries in that group as China and Russia are essentially doing with Russia become a resource provider and tied into the Chinese economic system, but this is not as a bloc.
A member within BRICS, China specifically, is doing very well with its currency and Russia and to a lesser extent Central Asia are doing so. India is also doing so to a much more limited extent and only begrudgingly as a payment gateway for Russian petrol. However, that's China's currency, not a BRICS currency and BRICS with its current constituent nations have no chance of assigning something as fundamental as money supply to a single member like China or to come together in a way where they'd work towards a group currency. Getting the Euro up and running was already like pulling teeth and that was within a singe geographic region with a lot less economic disparity among the nations, a lot more wealth in reserve, and some semblance of a shared social and historical background.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-04-2024 at 09:44 AM..
It certainly does cost Europe in the short term, but it's not Europe that asked for Russia to invade Ukraine, and the repercussions of doing nothing and emboldening Russia in its expansionist plans is projected to be far more costly. This was similar to in 2014 when the decision was to have only mild rebukes to Russia with the idea that perhaps it will be sufficient--which Russia then showed it was not. The idea that it hasn't hurt Russia more economically is completely false. GDP in terms of expenditures for Russia are up via heavy deficit spending on military materiel which does not improve Russia's economic position or its quality of life. It's taking that via selling its fossil fuel resources at a discounted price, but fossil fuel resources are not renewable and becomes increasingly more difficult and costly to extract as the more easily extractable portions of it are tackled first. They're basically short-changing themselves now for something that will have large economic repercussions in the near future and for at least the medium term.
Meanwhile, Europe is going through an expensive but ultimately beneficial energy transition and diversification strategy that can allow them to generate more of their own energy needs and allows them to not dependent on any single producer.
You understand that the amount of funding and military materiel given to Ukraine is a tiny fraction of the GDPs and total war materiel of NATO and its constituent members, right? Do you have any idea of what the scale difference is? Do you want to take a crack at it, because you're making it sound like it's a significant amount when it is nothing even clsoe to that.
Why are you lying? Here's the quote:
You are unable to stay internally consistency. It's one thing to be misinformed, but it's another to just be incompetent or mendacious.
Being in China and Taiwan does matter a lot in understanding the situation as China is the de facto major player within BRICS. You sound like countless numbers of clueless people within a monolingual Anglosphere bubble. Probably because you are. It doesn't help to have a bad information diet and to be incompetent enough to lack internal consistency.
Everyone has been ending reliance on the US dollar for the last few decades as the dollar was at an all-time high point right after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and right before major economic reforms especially within China and countries that were formerly modelling some of their economic system more towards that of the Soviet Union. The USSR's dissolution shook a lot of faith in that model, and that made for a very rapid rise in economic heft for a lot of places. The advent of the Euro and the economic rise of China and hence the RMB has made both of these very popular as foreign reserve currencies. I think you're completely misunderstanding BRICS though.
A member within BRICS, China specifically, is doing very well with its currency and Russia and to a lesser extent Central Asia are doing so. India is also doing so to a much more limited extent and only begrudgingly as a payment gateway for Russian petrol. However, that's China's currency, not a BRICS currency and BRICS with its current constituent nations have no chance of assigning something as fundamental as money supply to a single member like China or to come together in a way where they'd work towards a group currency. Getting the Euro up and running was already like pulling teeth and that was within a singe geographic region with a lot less economic disparity among the nations, a lot more wealth in reserve, and some semblance of a shared social and historical background.
Please Stop arguing with a strawman. I never claimed Ukraine has received a significant portion of Nato's arsenal. Who are you even talking to with these responses? I claimed Ukraine has received significant state of the art weaponry and Billions of dollars in support from the west which has done nothing to push Russia back since Ukraine's counterattack failed. As for you talking about Europe, you obviously have no clue coming from a US only viewpoint what Europe's position even is and how they view the war in Ukraine because you are not interested in listening. How disrespectful is it to say this war in Europe is costing Europe in the short term. Seriously? Tens of thousands of Ukrainians killed and large portions of it's territory taken and yet this is a short term cost. What a ridiculous American centred viewpoint. The fact of the matter is this. Europe is doing alot worse than Russia at the moment because it is losing it's people and territory to an aggressor not to mention it's economy which is largely stagnant
As for me lying, again i didn't lie. The comment you just quoted proves what i just stated. That i don't care about the ten years previous in regard's to Brazil's growth, i'm talking about today and tomorrow in regards to data from the IMF. How do i need to explain this any simpler? If i'm not being clear i apologize, let me know and i'll explain it.
Again your experience in Taiwan has little relevance to this discussion. What on earth does it's hostility with Taiwan have to do with BRICS and the topic of this thread about it's desire to break off from US/Western reliance? Living in Taiwan gives no-one a better a understanding of China as living in Ukraine gives one a better understanding of Russia as a nation. Your experience in China does however give us valuable insight which is most relevant
As for me misunderstanding BRICS. It is clear you don't understand my position. You appear to be of the view that i believed BRICS is a coherent and Unified structure like G7. I never stated that. I stated that BRICS members combined is set to overtake G7 nations in the coming decades in terms of overall GDP. About how today we are already witnessing a multi-polar world develop in which BRICS has increasingly become a vehicle in which nations seeking to escape US influence and become less reliant on the US dollar are seeking ways to form closer relations and economic co-operation on a number of issues. That's it mate, no need to makeup a strawman. Just stick to the topic at hand
As someone who has lived in Europe and Oceania we have very different view of the world than you might understand in the US. Here in Australia, we are an economy heavily reliant on China, our biggest trading partner. We are under no illusions of it's growing discontent with US/Western foreign policy and it's bullish attitudes across Asia to change that. We are also under no illusions that China is the one that largely pulls the strings in our economy and that won't change until we can break off our reliance. In Europe people in the west are more concerned with the cost of living crisis and refugee/migrant crisis than the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the east their biggest concern is with a potential war with Russia and on top of that the other issues that are plaguing western Europe. You might think of Europe as some coherent group but it is most certainly not. Europe is largely an economic, political and social mess at the moment and Russia knows this. Russia has exploited Europe's weakness. The world has changed over the last ten to twenty years in a significant way.
Please Stop arguing with a strawman. I never claimed Ukraine has received a significant portion of Nato's arsenal. Who are you even talking to with these responses? I claimed Ukraine has received significant state of the art weaponry and Billions of dollars in support from the west which has done nothing to push Russia back since Ukraine's counterattack failed. As for you talking about Europe, you obviously have no clue coming from a US only viewpoint what Europe's position even is and how they view the war in Ukraine because you are not interested in listening. How disrespectful is it to say this war in Europe is costing Europe in the short term. Seriously? Tens of thousands of Ukrainians killed and large portions of it's territory taken and yet this is a short term cost. What a ridiculous American centred viewpoint. The fact of the matter is this. Europe is doing alot worse than Russia at the moment because it is losing it's people and territory to an aggressor not to mention it's economy which is largely stagnant
As for me lying, again i didn't lie. The comment you just quoted proves what i just stated. That i don't care about the ten years previous in regard's to Brazil's growth, i'm talking about today and tomorrow in regards to data from the IMF. How do i need to explain this any simpler? If i'm not being clear i apologize, let me know and i'll explain it.
Again your experience in Taiwan has little relevance to this discussion. What on earth does it's hostility with Taiwan have to do with BRICS and the topic of this thread about it's desire to break off from US/Western reliance? Living in Taiwan gives no-one a better a understanding of China as living in Ukraine gives one a better understanding of Russia as a nation. Your experience in China does however give us valuable insight which is most relevant
As for me misunderstanding BRICS. It is clear you don't understand my position. You appear to be of the view that i believed BRICS is a coherent and Unified structure like G7. I never stated that. I stated that BRICS members combined is set to overtake G7 nations in the coming decades in terms of overall GDP. About how today we are already witnessing a multi-polar world develop in which BRICS has increasingly become a vehicle in which nations seeking to escape US influence and become less reliant on the US dollar are seeking ways to form closer relations and economic co-operation on a number of issues. That's it mate, no need to makeup a strawman. Just stick to the topic at hand
As someone who has lived in Europe and Oceania we have very different view of the world than you might understand in the US. Here in Australia, we are an economy heavily reliant on China, our biggest trading partner. We are under no illusions of it's growing discontent with US/Western foreign policy and it's bullish attitudes across Asia to change that. We are also under no illusions that China is the one that largely pulls the strings in our economy and that won't change until we can break off our reliance. In Europe people in the west are more concerned with the cost of living crisis and refugee/migrant crisis than the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the east their biggest concern is with a potential war with Russia and on top of that the other issues that are plaguing western Europe. You might think of Europe as some coherent group but it is most certainly not. Europe is largely an economic, political and social mess at the moment and Russia knows this. Russia has exploited Europe's weakness. The world has changed over the last ten to twenty years in a significant way.
Ha, you think just saying it's a strawman makes it a strawman? What other terms are you going to throw around here? Or are you saying you're a strawman given how flimsy your arguments have been?
I mentioned living in Taiwan AND China, as in I follow the news media in both which have coverage in a very different manner from the Anglosphere. As in I have some grasp of the Chinese language media and general sentiment. You are likely some monolingual person of the Anglosphere trapped in some algorithmic bubble given what you've been posting.
You also have some of the basics that are easy to fact check wrong and are not open to interpretation. Ukraine has done nothing to push Russia back? Here's a map from the start of the invasion to May 1st, 2024:
This is not particularly difficult map reading--you just don't bother to consider perhaps you should know what you're talking about before saying it. Or maybe you want to argue that you can't read the map and therefore what you say can't be held against you.
Your argument that Russia is doing better seems to be based on GDP growth, but you don't seem to have any idea what that means. Have you tried looking at what percentage of Russia's GDP and government budget is now devoted to this war? Have you even considered doing so for NATO's constituent countries? You probably have no grasp of even the basics of macroeconomics, right? You just think GDP line go up more must be better and that's it, right? Russia is spending itself into an insane debt trap and has lost its Central Asian sphere of influence and is reliant on being a resource exporter to China. All this for nowhere close to what they thought their war expenditures and gains were to be. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians dying is awful for Europe, but hundred thousand of Russians dying and even more fleeing the country is not worse? How were you quantifying this as Europe is doing worse than Russia? This is just more of your inability to be internally consistent.
I guess if you're not competent enough to know you're lying, then technically it's not a lie? Is that your argument here? Your posts contradicting yourself were such a small span of time apart, and you could just re-read them, but you choose to appear incompetent instead of being a liar. That's good and fine, but either direction is not persuasive.
Pfft, did you forget which forum you're in? What other languages do you really speak besides English? Did you think you're arguing with just Americans or people who live in only in America? I've lived in more BRICS countries than you've lived in, and can actually ingest the media in a few of them. Greysholic who often has awful posts that you're arguing with is pretty clearly not a native English speaker and not from America. This is the World Forum--did you really think everyone here was a monolingual American? And how did you figure that argument was going to cover up you not being aware of pretty basic facts and making arguments that are internally inconsistent? Sorry bud, but those aren't really defined by national boundaries. It would certainly be unreasonably insulting to Australians to take your posts as representative of Australia and its people.
Here's something simple we do agree on. G7 as in the current members and the European Union as of the time of this post (not counting future additions) and BRICS as in its current members might one day see the combined GDP of the countries of the latter add up to greater than those of the former. There is a pretty decent chance of that in the next couple of decades.
But as I've been saying and what initially asked if you meant anything else with this thread, it's also essentially meaningless because BRICS is incapable of operating as a joint entity in any meaningful way. The multipolar world is happening and that's been the case since the high point of a unipolar world of the collective "West" in the 90s. There are many reasons for it, but BRICS is not another pole. It does not even herald the kind of split polar of the first and second world of the Cold War because there is no second world collective at the moment and there cannot be since BRICS has great difficulty with joint actions given deep seated and ongoing conflicts among its members. Instead, you'll likely see multiple powerful nations form their own poles with at least China being one of them and India being another.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-04-2024 at 01:03 PM..
BRICS is a joke. It’s not an alliance of any strerch of the imagination. Is it a bunch of individual non-Western countries (with the exception of Brazil) that are growing economically sure? Do they have any strategic, economic, social, or any other goals in common with each other? F no. These countries have almost nothing in common. The idea of a BRICS currency is a pipe dream at best. China claims Arunachal Pradesh as their own territory and wouldn’t hesitate to start a war over it because the CCP is so drunk on their delusional nationalism. Russia feels entitled to dominate not just Eastern Europe but Asia as well. They are “enemy of my enemy is my friend” at best with China. South Africa and Brazil are a total toss up depending on which leader they have with regards to aligning with the West or the other BRICS countries. Lula and Bolsonaro have been incompetent, corrupt jokes and South Africa has had increasingly incompetent and corrupt leaders since Mandela and is approaching Zimbabwe status. India under Modi is destroying their international relations with their anti-Muslim radically Hindu nationalistic insanity. What a great bunch of scary countries you got there. The west better cower in fear /s
Ha, you think just saying it's a strawman makes it a strawman? What other terms are you going to throw around here? Or are you saying you're a strawman given how flimsy your arguments have been?
I mentioned living in Taiwan AND China, as in I follow the news media in both which have coverage in a very different manner from the Anglosphere. As in I have some grasp of the Chinese language media and general sentiment. You are likely some monolingual person of the Anglosphere trapped in some algorithmic bubble given what you've been posting.
You also have some of the basics that are easy to fact check wrong and are not open to interpretation. Ukraine has done nothing to push Russia back? Here's a map from the start of the invasion to May 1st, 2024:
This is not particularly difficult map reading--you just don't bother to consider perhaps you should know what you're talking about before saying it. Or maybe you want to argue that you can't read the map and therefore what you say can't be held against you.
Your argument that Russia is doing better seems to be based on GDP growth, but you don't seem to have any idea what that means. Have you tried looking at what percentage of Russia's GDP and government budget is now devoted to this war? Have you even considered doing so for NATO's constituent countries? You probably have no grasp of even the basics of macroeconomics, right? You just think GDP line go up more must be better and that's it, right? Russia is spending itself into an insane debt trap and has lost its Central Asian sphere of influence and is reliant on being a resource exporter to China. All this for nowhere close to what they thought their war expenditures and gains were to be. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians dying is awful for Europe, but hundred thousand of Russians dying and even more fleeing the country is not worse? How were you quantifying this as Europe is doing worse than Russia? This is just more of your inability to be internally consistent.
I guess if you're not competent enough to know you're lying, then technically it's not a lie? Is that your argument here? Your posts contradicting yourself were such a small span of time apart, and you could just re-read them, but you choose to appear incompetent instead of being a liar. That's good and fine, but either direction is not persuasive.
Pfft, did you forget which forum you're in? What other languages do you really speak besides English? Did you think you're arguing with just Americans or people who live in only in America? I've lived in more BRICS countries than you've lived in, and can actually ingest the media in a few of them. Greysholic who often has awful posts that you're arguing with is pretty clearly not a native English speaker and not from America. This is the World Forum--did you really think everyone here was a monolingual American? And how did you figure that argument was going to cover up you not being aware of pretty basic facts and making arguments that are internally inconsistent? Sorry bud, but those aren't really defined by national boundaries. It would certainly be unreasonably insulting to Australians to take your posts as representative of Australia and its people.
Here's something simple we do agree on. G7 as in the current members and the European Union as of the time of this post (not counting future additions) and BRICS as in its current members might one day see the combined GDP of the countries of the latter add up to greater than those of the former. There is a pretty decent chance of that in the next couple of decades.
But as I've been saying and what initially asked if you meant anything else with this thread, it's also essentially meaningless because BRICS is incapable of operating as a joint entity in any meaningful way. The multipolar world is happening and that's been the case since the high point of a unipolar world of the collective "West" in the 90s. There are many reasons for it, but BRICS is not another pole. It does not even herald the kind of split polar of the first and second world of the Cold War because there is no second world collective at the moment and there cannot be since BRICS has great difficulty with joint actions given deep seated and ongoing conflicts among its members. Instead, you'll likely see multiple powerful nations form their own poles with at least China being one of them and India being another.
Hey Oycrumbler. It's ok mate, Calm down your the one who has completely misunderstood what I have even been talking about. I didn't claim BRICS was a coherent alliance but I did claim overtime we will see closer co-operation especially as BRICS nations become more economically reliant on each other. I get it, you have a very limited understanding of the world being American. We both know you haven't lived in more BRICS countries so stop the lying. Your lack of ability to comprehend outside the US is evident of that and insulting of European and the entire west in General by referring to it as the Anglosphere is an embarrassment to other American posters with even a slight more understanding of the world.
As for claiming living in China/Taiwan has a very different coverage than the Anglosphere. How absolutely naive of you to think of the Anglosphere as some sort of bubble that only perceives the world within a narrow US centric view. The Perception of the world, BRICS etc from a UK viewpoint is VERY different than Oceania which being on the other side of the world is completely faced with a different number of threats and vulnerabilities. Again you probably think the Anglosphere is all of Europe aswell? Lol. How many European nations have you spent time in? We both know the answer to that when you clearly don't have a clue
As for how is Russia doing better than Europe because of its GDP. I said Russia is doing better because of it's GDP against a stagnant Europe and it successfully seizing European territory aswell as Europe going through a number of other social and poltical crisis which has left it vulnerable. I never claimed it was solely due to it's GDP however if we look at it's GDP. It's of no relevance to me that Russia pumping it's economy due to the war machine which I believe makes up 30-40% of government spending. Most likely Moscow is still internally building and diversifying it's economic co-operation with other nations evident by the fact that this year it's oil sales this year is set to almost be the same as in 2022 so it is proving to be resiliant. In Russia especially Moscow the large support for Putin is because they know the Russia they live in today is a farcry from the economic crisis of the 1990's so even if Russia's GDP drops over the coming decade especially if the war eventually Ramps down much slower growth will still be seem as an overall win Especially in Geopolitical terms because Russia will have annexed a portion of Europe. It will also have itself become less reliant on Western markers as it was prior to the war. This will be seen as a double win for Russia. Economic and militarily.
You see not only is Europe's economy stagnant but it is plagued with a large number of social crisis aswell as political that is changing the entire political makeup of Europe with smaller alternative right wing parties gaining momentum in the face of a crisis that has completely gripped the populations to such a degree that Ukraine only recieves a momentary thought on peoples minds and let me tell you even with this Europeans are very angry that Russia is aggressively seizing a portion of it's territory.
Anyway I don't expect you to understand any of this. Your claim that hundreads of thousands of European deaths and ceding large portions of territory to Russia is only a short term loss for Europe is absolutely disgraceful and typical of the American centric viewpoint the rest of us has to witness. You still don't comprehend how bad this all is for Europe and how Europeans think because you have any sort of clue.
The funny thing is the point of my posts you agree with is the main point I've been making on this thread. Stop writing long winded responses to points I never made to make yourself look intelligent and "Worldly" while at the same time insulting the entire Western world outside the US by simply referring to its as the "Anglosphere"
Ok back to basics. In order to make sure I'm not misrepresented again I'll reiterate the position I hold.
According to data BRICS nations are set G7 in the coming years. Again I'm not making a comparison about BRICS and G7 in it's coherency or their level of Co-operation.
My overall point is that developing and other newly developed nations are using BRICS as a vehicle to establish an ever great multi polar world which is now evident for us all to see. For us in Australia we have witnessed it for a number of years with the rise in China's power and influence. In Europe we witness it with the economic stagnation and crisis affecting almost all of Europe against an invasion where large portion of it's territory is being seized by Russia, another major player in BRICS which economically is powering through largely due to military spending on a war that it is winning.
As for the Coherency of BRICS. What we do know and can witness is that BRICS nations are coming together and have increasingly made it clear in China, Brazil and South Africa that they want to see BRICS bring about some balance to the world order and become an alternative to G7. While BRICS will likely never amount to the same level as the G7 in terms of it's coherency as we are talking about nations with very different cultures, poltical structures and economies it is likely the superpowers of this group Will use it as a vehicle to assert greater power and wealth. For example China may use it as we can see as another mechanism for exercising leadership in the world while Russia is using it to break into different markets diversifying it's trade.
You see this might be the true strength of BRICS. Unlike the G7 which is largely US focused in policy and direction, countries are joining BRICS because they see it as a means for them to still retain their own Geopolitical interests while being part of a group that works closer together in co-operation toward reliance within their own BLOC whether it be Africa, South America and Asia.
Any attempt by the US to intimate such nations or worse will be met with growing co-operation and unity by certain nations within it which we are already witnessing. Therefore it is clear to see that BRICS is slowly becoming something we in the west ought to look seriously at. As something of co-operation between the emergence of developing nations that are set to overtake Europe in terms of overall GDP and global power in the coming years and who are all unified in wanting to be independent of US/Western influence and intimidation.
As other posters have pointed out they see the differences and sometimes the hostility among certain BRICS nations as something that will prohibit these nations from ever fully working together. Fair enough I understand this point of view but can we truly deny that these nations are already coming together in greater Co-operation through BRICS? In which the feeling of hostility among BRICS members can be minimized in the face of what these nations view as a new and greater hostile western world? The West is generally static and unified on it's foreign policy in regards to the world. I know that for non western nations, as they grow in power and influence, are becoming increasingly frustrated with a west that won't change or compromise on issues it feels strongly about
What this thread is not about is standard of living of these nations or wage strength. Leave that for another topic, it's not relevent here. This is solely about the overall power and influence of emerging nations in the coming years in global affairs and the decline of Europe
BRICS is a joke. It’s not an alliance of any strerch of the imagination. Is it a bunch of individual non-Western countries (with the exception of Brazil) that are growing economically sure? Do they have any strategic, economic, social, or any other goals in common with each other? F no. These countries have almost nothing in common. The idea of a BRICS currency is a pipe dream at best. China claims Arunachal Pradesh as their own territory and wouldn’t hesitate to start a war over it because the CCP is so drunk on their delusional nationalism. Russia feels entitled to dominate not just Eastern Europe but Asia as well. They are “enemy of my enemy is my friend” at best with China. South Africa and Brazil are a total toss up depending on which leader they have with regards to aligning with the West or the other BRICS countries. Lula and Bolsonaro have been incompetent, corrupt jokes and South Africa has had increasingly incompetent and corrupt leaders since Mandela and is approaching Zimbabwe status. India under Modi is destroying their international relations with their anti-Muslim radically Hindu nationalistic insanity. What a great bunch of scary countries you got there. The west better cower in fear /s
While I agree with you BRICS isn't currently an alliance of any kind it would be naĂŻve to ignore BRICS hasn't been used by nations within it to form and strengthen existing alliances. Now as for BRIC nations being a joke and that the West cowering in fear would be laughable. Let me flip the switch and put things into perspective. Imagine it's 2024 and China has invaded several states of the USA. Hundreds of thousands of Americans killed and US forces being pushed back because most other states are hesitant about even going to war with China, even to prevent a portion of their nation from being annexed and therefore are not willing to enable the rest of the militarily to fight. Tell me then there is nothing to fear? That is the reality for eastern Europe. The sole reason why the West hasn't directly interfered in this war is solely because of a fear of the consequences.
Now it must be understood that Europe isn't united either. Not as much as people think. There are close to 50 nations in Europe each with their own distinct languages, cultures and national ethos. We are talking about Certain nations that have disagreements in what it would take for them to interfere in the war with Russia against Ukraine. Some such as Hungary wish to take a more neutral stance on it altogether. The reality is though most haven't done very much at all in the last six months and this has meant Europe has conceded ground to Russia at the cost of it's own indifference. G7 nations in Europe are enraged by Russia's expansion into Europe but they also prove they are powerless in stopping it. Russia's power ly's directly at both it's military size and capability but most of all it's nuclear arsenal which allows it to bully even developed European nations around by their inability to act directly.
Next, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea etc are allies to some degree. All apart from North Korea are BRICS nations. China is actively supplying Russia with weaponry in it's war against Eastern Europe. That's the reality today. It's not a threat of war. It's an on going war. Again imagine if this were happening in the US. India's position is no doubt surprising and largely due to it's co-operation with Russia through BRICS in which it has taken a completely neutral stance on the Ukraine war and abstained from every UN vote in condemning Russia. This has alarmed Washington who stated that India is making it clear it is taking a " Subtle pro Moscow position". War can be a unifying favor for many and more importantly it can be a real tester to show who your real friends and enemies are. While the Ukraine War initially unified Europe and Nato as a whole, overtime with European nations suffering from a number of internal crisis it's citizens believe their own problems to be more pressing therefore it is clear that it is Europe not Russia that is willing to compromise. Therefore while i might have agreed with your assessment a number of years ago we are witnessing nations like China, Russia, Iran etc are actively engaging or supplying war against western nations TODAY, the Chinese-Indian border is less relevant when we look at their actions on global events today. What may happen between India-China tomorrow is overshadowed by what HAS happened today. I suspect India is seeking closer relationship with BRICS nations as a means to strengthen itself perhaps in competition with China but also to become non reliant on the west. India this year is conducting a study to see if a BRICS currency is viable alternative to the US dollar. The intention is there, they clearly are making their position known they desire to form closer relationships with each other than a non flexible west.
As for South Africa and Brazil. As it has been stated. Brazil has one of the fastest developing countries in the world with the 8th largest economy in the world. The South African President has stated that boosting BRIC's influence would fulfil a common desire to have a more balanced world order. Again not all BRIC nations would succeed in becoming Global powers in the coming years but it is clear that many nations are being attracted to BRICS in helping to establish world order's that are not under US influence. The problem with this US/Western world order is that it is too inflexible. It is the US way or no way and as developing nations start to generate greater influence they see Washington as greatly impinging upon their sovereignty by demanding they fall in line with it's policies. If they don't then Washington has a reputation for being economically ruthless and punishing those that don't fall in line with severe economic sanctions and demanding their allies do the same so is this really a surprise?
One more thing. Where does the idea come from that G7 nations are unified? During the Iraq invasion by US led forces in 2003 Germany and France were vocally against it aswell as most of Europe and the entire world. All the US really had was Britain on it's side and a few smaller nations including Australia. This exposes therefore how much the US can isolate itself in regards to foreign policy and it's largely this that you have leaders like Macron in France that stated just last year that Europe needs to move away from dependency on the US so as to avoid any confrontation with China over Taiwan. Macron has even claimed he wants to see Europe move away from the US and essentially become the third true Superpower in the world. Therefore again we see clear movement in Europe to become independent of US influence and reliance. Europe therefore isn't interested in US foreign policy, it has it's own interests and it wants to get into a position where if War does break out between the US and China, Europe can stay out of it. Tell me does this sound like the behavior of a close Alliance that people claim the G7 truly is?
If Europe truly does become this great superpower that many of it's German and French leaders envision i can assure you the US won't be happy and where does that leave the G7? Americans here truly don't understand the European position if they think they are happy for the US dominated world order to remain the same. At the same time however does Europe have the necessary means to Unify in such a way that it essentially becomes a Superpower? Regardless it proves that the idea of the G7 being a US led world order in which everyone is happy to continue with is nonsense. Lets see how things play out but it is clear the world is changing as it always does. US dominance was never going to last forever, not even Western dominance was. It was the West who enriched China by becoming economically reliant on it aswell as other Asian nations which have become manufacturing hubs of the world so we haven't got anyone else to blame
Hey Oycrumbler. It's ok mate, Calm down your the one who has completely misunderstood what I have even been talking about. I didn't claim BRICS was a coherent alliance but I did claim overtime we will see closer co-operation especially as BRICS nations become more economically reliant on each other. I get it, you have a very limited understanding of the world being American. We both know you haven't lived in more BRICS countries so stop the lying. Your lack of ability to comprehend outside the US is evident of that and insulting of European and the entire west in General by referring to it as the Anglosphere is an embarrassment to other American posters with even a slight more understanding of the world.
As for claiming living in China/Taiwan has a very different coverage than the Anglosphere. How absolutely naive of you to think of the Anglosphere as some sort of bubble that only perceives the world within a narrow US centric view. The Perception of the world, BRICS etc from a UK viewpoint is VERY different than Oceania which being on the other side of the world is completely faced with a different number of threats and vulnerabilities. Again you probably think the Anglosphere is all of Europe aswell? Lol. How many European nations have you spent time in? We both know the answer to that when you clearly don't have a clue
As for how is Russia doing better than Europe because of its GDP. I said Russia is doing better because of it's GDP against a stagnant Europe and it successfully seizing European territory aswell as Europe going through a number of other social and poltical crisis which has left it vulnerable. I never claimed it was solely due to it's GDP however if we look at it's GDP. It's of no relevance to me that Russia pumping it's economy due to the war machine which I believe makes up 30-40% of government spending. Most likely Moscow is still internally building and diversifying it's economic co-operation with other nations evident by the fact that this year it's oil sales this year is set to almost be the same as in 2022 so it is proving to be resiliant. In Russia especially Moscow the large support for Putin is because they know the Russia they live in today is a farcry from the economic crisis of the 1990's so even if Russia's GDP drops over the coming decade especially if the war eventually Ramps down much slower growth will still be seem as an overall win Especially in Geopolitical terms because Russia will have annexed a portion of Europe. It will also have itself become less reliant on Western markers as it was prior to the war. This will be seen as a double win for Russia. Economic and militarily.
You see not only is Europe's economy stagnant but it is plagued with a large number of social crisis aswell as political that is changing the entire political makeup of Europe with smaller alternative right wing parties gaining momentum in the face of a crisis that has completely gripped the populations to such a degree that Ukraine only recieves a momentary thought on peoples minds and let me tell you even with this Europeans are very angry that Russia is aggressively seizing a portion of it's territory.
Anyway I don't expect you to understand any of this. Your claim that hundreads of thousands of European deaths and ceding large portions of territory to Russia is only a short term loss for Europe is absolutely disgraceful and typical of the American centric viewpoint the rest of us has to witness. You still don't comprehend how bad this all is for Europe and how Europeans think because you have any sort of clue.
The funny thing is the point of my posts you agree with is the main point I've been making on this thread. Stop writing long winded responses to points I never made to make yourself look intelligent and "Worldly" while at the same time insulting the entire Western world outside the US by simply referring to its as the "Anglosphere"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy234
Ok back to basics. In order to make sure I'm not misrepresented again I'll reiterate the position I hold.
According to data BRICS nations are set G7 in the coming years. Again I'm not making a comparison about BRICS and G7 in it's coherency or their level of Co-operation.
My overall point is that developing and other newly developed nations are using BRICS as a vehicle to establish an ever great multi polar world which is now evident for us all to see. For us in Australia we have witnessed it for a number of years with the rise in China's power and influence. In Europe we witness it with the economic stagnation and crisis affecting almost all of Europe against an invasion where large portion of it's territory is being seized by Russia, another major player in BRICS which economically is powering through largely due to military spending on a war that it is winning.
As for the Coherency of BRICS. What we do know and can witness is that BRICS nations are coming together and have increasingly made it clear in China, Brazil and South Africa that they want to see BRICS bring about some balance to the world order and become an alternative to G7. While BRICS will likely never amount to the same level as the G7 in terms of it's coherency as we are talking about nations with very different cultures, poltical structures and economies it is likely the superpowers of this group Will use it as a vehicle to assert greater power and wealth. For example China may use it as we can see as another mechanism for exercising leadership in the world while Russia is using it to break into different markets diversifying it's trade.
You see this might be the true strength of BRICS. Unlike the G7 which is largely US focused in policy and direction, countries are joining BRICS because they see it as a means for them to still retain their own Geopolitical interests while being part of a group that works closer together in co-operation toward reliance within their own BLOC whether it be Africa, South America and Asia.
Any attempt by the US to intimate such nations or worse will be met with growing co-operation and unity by certain nations within it which we are already witnessing. Therefore it is clear to see that BRICS is slowly becoming something we in the west ought to look seriously at. As something of co-operation between the emergence of developing nations that are set to overtake Europe in terms of overall GDP and global power in the coming years and who are all unified in wanting to be independent of US/Western influence and intimidation.
As other posters have pointed out they see the differences and sometimes the hostility among certain BRICS nations as something that will prohibit these nations from ever fully working together. Fair enough I understand this point of view but can we truly deny that these nations are already coming together in greater Co-operation through BRICS? In which the feeling of hostility among BRICS members can be minimized in the face of what these nations view as a new and greater hostile western world? The West is generally static and unified on it's foreign policy in regards to the world. I know that for non western nations, as they grow in power and influence, are becoming increasingly frustrated with a west that won't change or compromise on issues it feels strongly about
You seemed to have missed the basic points.
I do not doubt that it's possible for the total GDP of countries that currently comprise BRICS to eventually have a higher collective GDP than that of countries that currently comprise G7. That these countries along with most other less wealthy per capita countries around the world including those outside either group have had higher growth rates given their lower base and move away from the command economy they formerly had has been predictably faster. That's always been the case. This happened earlier with countries like the four Asian tigers. Arguing against that is more for dumb-dumb ideological positions like you see from (obviously non-American and non-English native speaking posters) like Greysholic. That's not what I argued at any point.
You claim I'm lying for some reason, but that's fine. It makes sense from your posts that you don't actually have much knowledge outside of a limited bubble of how the non-Anglosphere works and the changes that have been wrought over the last few decades. I have American citizenship, but it's not the only citizenship I have and it's not the one I was born with. I think it's better that this is insulting to you rather than being incompetent and misinformed.
The Anglosphere media is constrained. There are multiple viewpoints, but you still suffer from the basic idea that relationships among the countries somehow has to always and constantly be mediated through comparisons to Anglosphere countries. This is not the case. China and India have had and continue to have relationships and conflicts well outside of any direction mediation or impact of Western, predominantly Anglosphere powers.
No one said that the Anglosphere is all of Europe. Where did you get that from? France has consistently and continued to carve out a separate political and media sphere--something that you as a pretty obviously English monolingual person seem to not understand. French is one of the languages I grew up with and actually ingest the media and conversations in. French is also not exclusively Western and even among "Western" French media outlets, there is a constant need to set it apart from the Anglosphere conversations you are relegated to. The G7 is much more unified in having no direct armed confrontation among itself, but it still differs enough that in some contexts considering it as a single pole does not make sense. The thing is, this pales in comparison to the conflicts among BRICS nations.
You seem to not understand this at all to think that BRICS is some kind of unity that presents itself as a pole in a new world order. Unfortunately, BRICS means just about nothing in the relationship between most of these individual countries.
It is obvious that you're citing GDP growth as why Russia is doing better. This is incredibly naive, and you don't seem to have any understanding of this. You can easily juice the GDP figures of a country via deficit spending for the short term as you can via military invasion and build up as well as rapidly selling assets out at a discount. It does not by itself make your country more powerful, because debt in some way or another will need to be paid. Primary resource extraction nets you short term gain, but if none of that goes into secondary and tertiary sectors that are sustainable, then you've basically sold out goods that can not be easily replenished for short term gain. You think that's resilience somehow, but you don't see the shift towards renewable energy and energy efficiency in Europe and the short term hit that takes as a longer term strategy away from dependency. This is what I mean by my seemingly accurate description that you're idea of economic might is simply line went up in GDP growth without any concern with what went into making that line go up.
I do not think loss of life and economic contraction as generally a good thing. I'm still internally consistent here. You've lost that completely by claiming tens of thousands of Ukrainians dying within what you've placed as the Europe bucket as proof of Russia's gain when you seemed to have omitted the far larger number of casualties in Russia and how much larger the proportion of Russian expenditures had to be compared to NATO constituent countries. This is yet another example of your lack of internal consistency in your arguments. You basically said "Tens of thousands of Ukrainian deaths by Russia -- proof that Europe is losing!" and then choose to ignore "Over a hundred thousand Russian deaths due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine" as what? Russia then winning? On a lower population base than NATO and a much, much lower GDP base?
Countries are joining BRICS because they might get access to a development bank funded by China and have almost no strings attached to it, because BRICS is not a coherent force that would be able to enforce any kind of meaningful collective pressure.
BRICS doesn't prevent or enhance the ability to work together in any meaningful way. Its constituent countries especially its major players have too many ongoing conflicts. It's relatively easy to join, but it also doesn't move the dial in any meaningful way. India and China are not going to develop into a coherent pole together in this organization or any other one in any meaningful way for at least the near future and potentially ever. They are powerful countries that will develop their own poles that will engage each other, including in sometimes violent upswellings, through all kinds of agencies with BRICS simply being just another one of them, but they'll also be engaging with G7 countries collectively or individually but with likely less direct conflict at least in the case of India. I do not think you understand how India is depicted and thought of within Chinese language media and how government sanctioned media depicts such and what popular laymen social media and forums say about the relationship. You cannot, because you are in a western Anglosphere bubble that needs to insert some kind of direct US or other western power foil into everything. You probably cannot help it, and you will continue to refuse to understand that your lack of understanding will continue. I know that I am also very limited. I don't engage media in Portuguese, Hindi/Urdu, Russian, Arabic, Turkic, Persian, etc. and these likely have large spreads internally themselves. I can tell from the few languages I do feel comfortable in though, that there is a lot of dialogue, cooperation and confrontation that the western Anglosphere media even from the many differing ideological viewpoints within it does not usually seem to consider.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-05-2024 at 02:15 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
