IN 1945, THE USA GDP ACCOUNTED FOR 50 PER CENT THAT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD [TODAY IT IS AROUND 12 PER CENT]... BY THE 1960s, THE WORLD BECAME BIPOLAR. CAPITALISM vs COMMUNISM... IN THE EARLY 1990s, THE USSR ABANDONED THE COMPETITION WITH SOME CAVEATS. THE USA BECAME THE UNIPOLAR MASTERS OF THE PLANET.

BY 2000, THE TROUBLES [MANY OF THESE FOSTERED BY THE WEST] THAT NEARLY DESTROYED RUSSIA BEGAN TO SETTLE UNDER THE CLEVER LEADERSHIP OF VLADIMIR PUTIN. BY THEN PUTIN DID NOT WANT TO CONFRONT THE WEST. HE WAS READY TO MAKE FRIENDS. BUT, BY 2008, AFTER A FEW CIA COVERT EVENTS AND OVERT AGGRESSIVE WISHES FROM THE WEST — ESPECIALLY NATO MOVING EASTWARD, CONTRARILY TO HANDSHAKES MADE WITH GORBACHEV WHO ALLOWED THE BERLIN WALL DEMOLITION AND THE REUNIFICATION OF GERMANY — VLADIMIR PUTIN WARNED THAT GEORGIA AND UKRAINE IN NATO WAS A NIET MEANING NIET. 

BY 2014, THE WEST HAD FULLY INFILTRATED UKRAINE VIA ITS NAZI NETWORK AND AMERICA SPONSORED THE DESTRUCTION OF DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE. PUTIN SOON ANNEXED CRIMEA FOR TWO REASONS: FIRST, THE POPULATION OF CRIMEA IS NEARLY ENTIRELY RUSSIAN AND SECOND IT IS THE SITE OF THE RUSSIAN FLEET IN THE BLACK SEA... WITHIN A FEW MONTHS A REFERENDUM WAS HELD AND CRIMEA VOTED TO REJOIN RUSSIA — AS IT HAS BEEN TILL 1954.

BY 2015, THE DONBASS REGION SEEKED AUTONOMY FROM THE KIEV REGIME THAT HAD BECOME FULLY NAZIFIED... THE MINSK AGREEMENTS WERE DEVISED TO RATIFY THIS AUTONOMY IN UKRAINE...

BUT DESPITE THESE AGREEMENTS — LATER ADMITTED BY THE FRENCH AND GERMAN SIGNATORIES TO BE FRAUDULENT — THE NAZI KIEV REGIME STARTED TO BOMB THE DONBASS AND KILLED AROUND 15,000 RUSSIAN/UKRAINIANS LIVING THERE.

BY 2021, VLADIMIR PUTIN MADE SOME SERIOUS PEACE PROPOSALS TO THE WEST, WHICH THE WEST "LAUGHED AT" AS, MEANWHILE, THE NAZI KIEV REGIME WAS PREPARING A FULL-ON ASSAULT OF THE DONBASS TO KICK THE LEGITIMATE RUSSIAN INHABITANTS OUT, WITH THE HELP OF NATO SUPERVISION... THIS WOULD HAVE KILLED AT LEAST A FURTHER 100,000 PEOPLE IN THE DONBASS.

BY 24TH FEBRUARY 2022, RUSSIA LAUNCHED A LIMITED MILITARY OPERATION [NOT A FULL-SCALE INVASION AS CLAIMED BY MANY WESTERN MEDIA — INCLUDING DW] DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE RUSSIANS IN THE DONBASS. VERY SOON, THE KIEV REGIME MILITARY COLLAPSED AND THE RUSSIAN SOLDIERS FOUND THEMSELVES WITHIN 15 KILOMETRES FROM KIEV.

A QUICK PEACE DEAL WAS WORKED OUT — AND FOR THIS DEAL TO BE SIGNED OFF, THE RUSSIAN AGREED TO RETREAT. BY THEN THE WEST ORDERED THE NAZI KIEV REGIME TO CONTINUE AND FIGHT WITH A FLOOD OF WESTERN WEAPONS. MEANWHILE THE NAZI KIEV REGIME PLAYED DIRTY AND ACCUSED THE RUSSIAN ARMY OF "WAR CRIMES" ESPECIALLY IN A FALSE FLAG EVENT IN BUCHA....

THE WINNING RUSSIAN ARMY SO FAR THEN HAD BEEN "UNDER STRENGTH" AND RETREATED TO FORTIFIED POSITIONS IN THE DONBASS. BY 2022, FOUR OTHER OBLASTS HAD VOTED TO REJOIN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION OF WHICH THEY USED TO BE PART OF TILL 1922.

BY 2023, THE "WAR" HAD BECOME A CONFLICT OF ATTRITION. EVEN THE PENTAGON ADMITTED THAT FOR ONE RUSSIAN SOLDIER KILLED, SEVEN SOLDIERS OF THE NAZI KIEV REGIME DIED.

NEW WEAPONS BECAME THE FLAVOUR OF THE BATTLEFIELD... DRONES AND MID-RANGE MISSILES. 

BY 2025, THE RATE OF ATTRITION WAS 100 KIEV REGIME SOLDIERS KILLED FOR 10 RUSSIANS.

BY NOW, IN 2026, THE RATE OF ATTRITION IS AROUND 100 KIEV REGIME SOLDIERS KILLED FOR 4 RUSSIANS.

THE DEATH OF CIVILIANS IN THE KIEV REGIME AND IN RUSSIA IS SOMEWHAT EQUIVALENT — THOUGH THE KIEV REGIME IS DELIBERATELY TARGETING CIVILIANS, AND RUSSIA IS NOT...

 

OVERALL, THE RUSSIANS ARE WINNING.

 

THE WEST AND ITS PROXY, THE NAZI KIEV REGIME, ARE LOSING...

THE MOST FORMIDABLE AND EFFICIENT ARMY IN THE WORLD IS NOT AMERICAN, NOR CHINESE. IT IS RUSSIAN.

THE WEST HAS CREATED THIS.

NOW WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH "MULTIPOLARITY"

SIMPLE. THIS HAS DESTROYED THE ENFORCED "MONOPOLY" OF AMERICA ON THE WORLD STAGE.

THE RECENT RUSSIA/AFRICA SUMMIT HAS PROVEN THE VALUE OF RUSSIA'S POLARITY TO MUCH OF THE REST OF THE WORLD. MEANWHILE OTHER NATIONS, INCLUDING INDIA AND CHINA HAVE ALSO BECOME NEW POLES OF GEOPOLITICAL IMPORTANCE. THOUGH THE USA IS STILL TRYING TO INFLUENCE MANY COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD THROUGH THREATS AND INTERNAL DISRUPTIONS, THE USA IS LOSING ITS VALUE. THIS WAS NOT STARTED UNDER TRUMP. HE'S A SYMPTOM OF THE DECLINE. THE BUSHES WERE PUSHING THEIR LUCK WITH LIES IN REGARD TO SADDAM... OBAMA AND HIS LITTLE WARS IN LIBYA AND SYRIA, SHOWED THE WORLD YOU CANNOT TRUST THE BASTARDS. THE FACT THAT IRAN IS HOLDING FIRM AGAINST TRUMP'S MADNESS IS ALSO ADDING TO THE CONCEPT.

THE MULTIPOLARITY IS IRREVERSIBLE, DESPITE HAVING CREATED TREMORS OF FRIENDSHIP AND ALIGNMENT.

THE LIMITED RUSSIAN MILITARY OPERATION IN 2022 WAS THE CATALYST FOR CHANGE. 

YET THIS MULTIPOLARITY, WHICH INCLUDES THE DOLLAR LOSING ITS IMPORTANCE, IS STILL IN A FLUX AND COUNTRIES LIKE AUSTRALIA NEED TO BE CLEVER TO MANAGE FRIENDSHIPS WITHOUT THREATENING OTHERS. IT'S A DELICATE COMPLEX SYNERGY.

FOR STARTERS, ONE SHOULD NOT SUPPORT "YUCKRAINE" [THE NAZI KIEV REGIME] AGAINST RUSSIA. ONE SHOULD RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

YES, LIKE AMERICA IS A COLLECTION OF STATES WITH THEIR OWN PECULIAR WAYS, RUSSIA IS MADEUP OF VARIOUS PROVINCES... SO, AS THE WEST RECOGNISES IT IS LOSING THE UKRAINE WAR, IT IS PREPARING THE NEXT DECEIT: DISMANTLE THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION INTO LITTLE INSIGNIFICANT STATES.

PRESENTLY, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IS EXTREMELY COHESIVE — BUT WITH THE HELP OF THE CIA AND "DEFECTORS", THE WEST WILL TRY ITS BEST TO DESTROY RUSSIA.

AMERICA HAS VOWED TO DESTROY RUSSIA SINCE 1917...

FRANCE HAS VOWED TO DO THE SAME SINCE NAPOLEON GOT HIS ARSE KICKED...

ENGLAND HAS HATED RUSSIA SINCE NO ONE CAN REMEMBER...

AND GERMANY WANTS REVENGE FOR HAVING LOST WW2 TO RUSSIA. 

THE BALTIC STATES STILL RESENT COMMUNISM TO A RATIO OF ±60/40

MEANWHILE, MULTIPOLARITY WILL GROW, DESPITE AMERICA AND HER WARMONGERING THINK TANKS*...

 

=====================

 

IN THE FLLOWING INTERVIEW, PROFESSOR ESPOSTO EXPLAINS WHY HE BELIEVES THAT THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE [GUS: STARTED BY THE WEST] HAS BEEN THE EVENT TO CATALYSE MULTIPOLARITY... THE DISCUSSION REVOLVES ABOUT AN ARTICLE WRITTEN IN 2023 BY ESPOTO, BUT PUBLISHED IN 2025...

 

Blow To US Empire: Australia's BIG Pivot Is Coming | Prof. Alexis Esposto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PsevgFCNsQ

 

In contrast to the EU, Australia does maintain some degrees of freedom and pragmatism when it comes to Foreign Relations.

Professor Alexis Esposto joins Pascal to discuss Australia’s choices in an emerging multipolar world. They examine the country’s reliance on the United States, its economic relationship with China and the opportunities offered by Asia’s growing markets. Esposto questions whether American protection can provide lasting security, while discussing AUKUS, maritime vulnerabilities and financial dependence. The conversation explores pragmatic diplomacy, neutrality, migration, alternative payment systems and the challenge of protecting Australian prosperity without becoming trapped in a conflict between major powers.

 

===================

 

ABSTRACT:

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 the world experienced a transformation from bipolarity to unipolarity, where the United States has become the global hegemon. However, the world appears to be evolving into a "multipolar world" where nations such as the BRICS' block are likely to have strong economic influence in their respective geopolitical regions. Events currently taking place in Ukraine and Gaza seem to have accelerated this process, where nations such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa art exercising stronger influence in world affairs. According to the literature, several factors have been identified as major drivers of multipolarity, namely, China's booming economic growth and rapid technological change throughout many parts of the world. These transformations pose challenges and opportunities to "middle sized" nations such as Australia. In order to analyze these, a SWOT analysis methodology was conducted for Australia, which found that Australia has much to gain in an emerging multipolar world, however, it needs to navigate these troubled waters with very astute diplomatic care.

SEE ALSO: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/03/06/multipolarity-australia-world-geoeconomics/

 

===============

 

Ukraine-backed self-styled ‘decolonizers’ push to break up Russia – RT (VIDEO)

Activists claiming to represent Russia’s ethnic minorities have gained platforms in Western institutions despite questions about their legitimacy 

A small but vocal group of activists claiming to represent Russia’s many ethnic minorities has been courting Western support for what they call the country’s “decolonization.”

Ukrainian and Western officials have helped the activists gain platforms in the EU, the Council of Europe and the UN.

Some of their claims, including the portrayal of Russia, home to roughly 200 ethnic groups, as Europe’s last colonial empire, have been echoed by French President Emmanuel Macron and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas.

One such group, the Free Nations of Post-Russia Forum, has published a map depicting Russia divided into 40 independent states.

In his latest report, RT’s Igor Zhdanov examines the activists’ ties to Ukraine and questions their claims to represent communities inside Russia.

Among those featured is Pavel Sulyandziga, who left Russia in 2017 after coming under suspicion of embezzling more than $100,000 in funds donated to support indigenous culture in one of the country’s northern regions.

Watch the full report here:

https://rt-english.com/russia/648208-rt-examines-decolonization-russia/

 

======================

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

 

=====================

 

FROM THE IDIOTS AT FOREIGN POLICY

*WARMONGERING THINK TANK:

 

No, the World Is Not Multipolar
The idea of emerging power centers is popular but wrong—and could lead to serious policy mistakes.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2023, 3:36 AM

By Jo Inge Bekkevold,

One of the most persistent arguments put forward by politicians, diplomats, and observers of international politics is that the world is or soon will be multipolar. In recent months, this argument has been made by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, French President Emmanuel Macron, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Josep Borrell, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs, argues that that the world has been a system of “complex multipolarity” ever since the 2008 global financial crisis.

The idea is also being popularized in the business world: Morgan Stanley, the investment bank, recently issued a strategy paper for “navigating a multipolar world,” while INSEAD, a respected European business school, is concerned about leadership skills in such a world.

But despite what politicians, pundits, and investment bankers tell us, it is simply a myth that today’s world is anywhere close to multipolar.

The reasons are straightforward. Polarity simply refers to the number of great powers in the international system—and for the world to be multipolar, there have to be three or more such powers. Today, there are only two countries with the economic size, military might, and global leverage to constitute a pole: the United States and China. Other great powers are nowhere in sight, and they won’t be anytime soon. The mere fact that there are rising middle powers and nonaligned countries with large populations and growing economies does not make the world multipolar.

The absence of other poles in the international system is evident if we look at the obvious candidates. In 2021, fast-growing India was the third-largest spender on defense, which is one indicator to measure power. But according to the latest figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, its military budget is only one-quarter of China’s. (And China’s numbers may be even higher than commonly believed.) Today, India is still largely concentrated on its own development. It has an undersized foreign service, and its navy—an important yardstick for leverage in the Indo-Pacific—is small compared to China’s, which has launched five times more naval tonnage over the past five years. India may one day be a pole in the system, but that day belongs in the distant future.

Economic wealth is another indicator for the ability to wield power. Japan has the third-largest economy in the world, but according to the latest figures from the International Monetary Fund, its GDP is less than one-quarter of China’s. Germany, India, Britain, and France—the next four largest economies in the world—are even smaller.

Nor is the European Union a third pole, even if that argument has been tirelessly advanced by Macron and many others. European states have varying national interests, and their union is prone to rifts. For all the apparent unity in the European Union’s support for Ukraine, there is simply no unified European defense, security, or foreign policy. There is a reason that Beijing, Moscow, and Washington converse with Paris and Berlin—and rarely seek out Brussels.

Russia is, of course, a potential candidate for great-power status based on its land area, massive natural resources, and huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. The country certainly has an impact beyond its borders—it is waging a major European war and drove Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Nonetheless, with an economy smaller than Italy’s and a military budget equaling only one-quarter of China’s at most, Russia does not qualify as a third pole in the international system. At most, Russia can play a supporting role for China.

A widespread argument among those who believe in multipolarity is the rise of the global south and the shrinking position of the West. However, the presence of old and new middle powers—India, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia are often named as additions to the roster—does not make the system multipolar, since none of these countries has the economic power, military might, and other forms of influence to be a pole of its own. In other words, these countries lack ability to vie with the United States and China.

And while it is true that the United States’ share of the global economy has been receding, it retains a dominant position, especially when considered together with China. The two great powers account for half of the world’s total defense spending, and their combined GDP roughly equals the 33 next-largest economies added together.

The expansion of the BRICS forum at its summit in Johannesburg last month (previously, the block included only Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) is interpreted as a sign that the multipolar order is here or at least being advanced. However, blocs are too heterogeneous to function as poles—and they can easily fall apart. BRICS is nowhere near a coherent bloc, and while member states may share views on the international economic order, they have widely divergent interests in other areas. In security policy—the strongest indicator of alignment—the two largest members, China and India, are at odds. Indeed, Beijing’s rise is driving New Delhi to align itself more closely with the United States.

So, if the world is not multipolar, why is the multipolarity argument so popular? In addition to the lazy way that it ignores facts and concepts about international relations, three obvious explanations stand out.

First, for many people who advance the idea of multipolarity, it is a normative concept. It is another way of saying—or hoping—that the age of Western dominance is over and that power is or should be diffuse. Guterres regards multipolarity as a way to fix multilateralism and bring equilibrium to the world system. For many European leaders, multipolarity is seen as a preferred alternative to bipolarity, because the former is believed to better enable a world governed by rules, allow for global partnerships with diverse actors, and prevent the emergence of new blocs.

AH CRAP....

READ ON: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/22/multipolar-world-bipolar-power-geopolitics-business-strategy-china-united-states-india/

 

SURE DON'T CALL IT MULTIPOLARITY, CALL IT MULTI-DIVERSITY [TAUTOLOGY], IF YOU WILL....