Will it Lead to WW3?

[lostbook]

Hello, everyone.

It’s been a while since I posted anything but I’ve got a question in mind that I think we can discuss here…? That question is whether the real reason for the current Middle East problems is because the powers that be; namely Western powers, want to hurt the economies of the rising BRICS nations by dragging them into a conflict which will hurt their economies and slow the rapid expansion of the BRICS? Just wondering…?

I think whatever the case, it’s a dangerous game being played right now which may lead to WW3.

What say you?

[UltraBudgie]

One could as easily argue that the reason for the "Western powers" involving themselves in "Middle East problems" has been to force the creation of something like BRICS. I mean, it could have been foreseen.

[UltraBudgie]

i am deleting this because geopolitics makes me feel icky

[xpert11]

I think whatever the case, it’s a dangerous game being played right now which may lead to WW3.

What say you?

The Ukraine war's outcome is the likely tipping point to WW3 or an increasing number of regional conflicts. Based on the U.S. and the international community's lousy response to Russia invading Ukraine, China and North Korea are taking notes.

Middle East conflicts are more numerous and frequent than conventional wars involving China. But if China pulls the trigger on invading Taiwan or another one of their territorial disputes, strap in for rough waters. That war's level of destruction and casualties is potentially greater than WW2 produced.

Alternatively, Russian industrial output rises sufficiently to support Putin's ambitions for further military expansion.

Also, consider what occurs if or when China and Russia make those moves in a similar timeframe. Moreover, North Korea and Iran are also in the mix.

[Maxmars]

... That question is whether the real reason for the current Middle East problems is because the powers that be; namely Western powers, want to hurt the economies of the rising BRICS nations by dragging them into a conflict which will hurt their economies and slow the rapid expansion of the BRICS? 

Excellent question for discussion!

When we ask about 'real reasons' I have to say, we might never know... even being "told" by the players leaves us with the potential for misdirection... 

When I consider "Middle East" problems there are elements which must be specified.
The idea of "Western powers" is very vague... often concealing the true identity of exactly to whom we are referring.
BRICS is not much more than a collective designation for entities that want more than they now have access to.
"Their economies" are not a collection of unified systems of currency and policy.
"WW3" is a notional threat... one that can be argued already exists in an unrecognized form... or doesn't exists at all - yet.

The Middle East tensions and angst seems to be fully afflicted by devotion to "retribution," giving each interest justification for continued conflict.  Each action is 'justified' by prior actions of antagonists.  The root of this conflict is all but lost.  None are willing to "let go" in the name of peace... where "peace" has been corrupted into "surrender" or "weakness."

"Western powers" are a fantasy, as each constituent of what we call "western" is mostly not committed to anything other than their own local needs.

BRICS is a reflection of the same basic concepts as "Middle East"...  National representatives of economic disparities, lack of expected opportunity, and tacit submission to economic banking overlords - who are in fact lusting after global dominance based upon a monopoly of currency and other 'virtual' resources.  There is in the end only one bank... the IBS.

Isn't it telling that no matter who's economies get hurt...the Bank always remains?  This is a fool's game... playing against the Casino House rules... it is they who control the wellspring.

Economies are systems of trade... each tailored to their local cultures and societies... each 'self-justified' by those empowered to set rules for their region.

WW3 is a demon, a threat, a global fear meme.  Global conflagration depends on regional posturing, and ultimately the designs and desires of ruling classes, or ruling groups of people.

Can you imagine a world where a status quo is established and operational?  In this context the "West" represents that status quo (rightly or wrongly.)  A new organization of disaffected economies coalesces... driven only by the similarities they share due to not being "of the west."  Each operate to extract increased economic power from the existing status quo...  and simultaneous recharacterize the existing system as an offensive creation actively poised against them... each time they fail to achieve their goal, they say "the west stands against us."  All the while refusing the reality that it is they who stand against what was already there.  It's a political game... recreating a narrative.

Linking a WW3 global conflagration to the narrative means they are trying to infuse fear into the disagreement.

These BRICS nations are actively avoiding the reality that if "they were in charge" each would serve their own nation first. 
And they are just as likely to conflict with each other as they are now against the "notional" west.

Any solution to the problems that cause the splintering of nations belongs squarely in the wheelhouse of the global bank, the only true sovereign entity...

[lostbook]

Excellent response!

Excellent question for discussion!

When we ask about 'real reasons' I have to say, we might never know... even being "told" by the players leaves us with the potential for misdirection... 

When I consider "Middle East" problems there are elements which must be specified.
The idea of "Western powers" is very vague... often concealing the true identity of exactly to whom we are referring.
BRICS is not much more than a collective designation for entities that want more than they now have access to.
"Their economies" are not a collection of unified systems of currency and policy.
"WW3" is a notional threat... one that can be argued already exists in an unrecognized form... or doesn't exists at all - yet.

The Middle East tensions and angst seems to be fully afflicted by devotion to "retribution," giving each interest justification for continued conflict.  Each action is 'justified' by prior actions of antagonists.  The root of this conflict is all but lost.  None are willing to "let go" in the name of peace... where "peace" has been corrupted into "surrender" or "weakness."

"Western powers" are a fantasy, as each constituent of what we call "western" is mostly not committed to anything other than their own local needs.

BRICS is a reflection of the same basic concepts as "Middle East"...  National representatives of economic disparities, lack of expected opportunity, and tacit submission to economic banking overlords - who are in fact lusting after global dominance based upon a monopoly of currency and other 'virtual' resources.  There is in the end only one bank... the IBS.

Isn't it telling that no matter who's economies get hurt...the Bank always remains?  This is a fool's game... playing against the Casino House rules... it is they who control the wellspring.

Economies are systems of trade... each tailored to their local cultures and societies... each 'self-justified' by those empowered to set rules for their region.

WW3 is a demon, a threat, a global fear meme.  Global conflagration depends on regional posturing, and ultimately the designs and desires of ruling classes, or ruling groups of people.

Can you imagine a world where a status quo is established and operational?  In this context the "West" represents that status quo (rightly or wrongly.)  A new organization of disaffected economies coalesces... driven only by the similarities they share due to not being "of the west."  Each operate to extract increased economic power from the existing status quo...  and simultaneous recharacterize the existing system as an offensive creation actively poised against them... each time they fail to achieve their goal, they say "the west stands against us."  All the while refusing the reality that it is they who stand against what was already there.  It's a political game... recreating a narrative.

Linking a WW3 global conflagration to the narrative means they are trying to infuse fear into the disagreement.

These BRICS nations are actively avoiding the reality that if "they were in charge" each would serve their own nation first. 
And they are just as likely to conflict with each other as they are now against the "notional" west.

Any solution to the problems that cause the splintering of nations belongs squarely in the wheelhouse of the global bank, the only true sovereign entity...