Volume 11, Issue 27
Any realignment of nation-states necessitates a casting of a vision by each state for the sustainability and strength of their sovereign purpose. It has been said that in statecraft there are more common interests of priority than just strictly common allies. This is based on the premise that nations will act primarily on the protection of their own self-interests rather than on overriding principles beneficial to all nations.
The greater influences impacting universal resets traditionally revolve around economic or military objectives. This looming reset is no different.
The above map illustrates the existing bloc of nations seeking the equilibrium of security in a new world order. These blocs include the NATO alliance, the BRICS consortium, and the totalitarian states of Russia and China. NATO was established in 1949 as a military alliance for protection against armed aggression. Any attack against one member is considered an attack against all members. Finland was just admitted in April. Sweden is on a protocol track for admittance in the near future.
BRICS is an economic alliance. The members, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, are attempting to form an economic zone standardized with varying degrees of managed economies.
China and Russia are outlier totalitarian states attempting to establish alliances based upon military power (Russia) and economic power (China). The competing interests of economic and military advantage of these countries are not necessarily compatible with other potential partners. Russia is attempting to be a totalitarian state and a member of BRICS as is China.
There are two other coordinating councils of nations that are important to any future realignments but subject to the intentions of the blocs defined. These councils are the G-7 and the G-20. These groups of countries meet on a wide range of issues composed of economic coordination, currency management, climate change, U.N. treaties, and cultural exchanges. Only Japan (G-7), Mexico, Australia, Indonesia, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia (G-20s) are nations of economic or military importance not participating in the above referenced blocs.
What is driving the culmination of events to a “great reset”? The answer is: suffocating world debt. The U.N. just reported that 59 countries are now paying more in interest on debt as part of their annual budget than on critical needs of government services for their citizens. The philosophical dilemma about which is best to provide economic security for society, totalitarian regimes or free enterprise capitalism, is at the center of the conflict in reference to realignment and reset. Adolph Hitler threatened the world with brutal military invasion in World War II. However, he came to power on the heels of overwhelming economic oppression imposed upon Germany following its defeat in World War I.
China last year made the strategic decision to align with Russia in its armed aggression against Ukraine. This has turned out to be a bad decision from which they are still trying to adjust. China is more concerned about economic stability than military dominance. Russia was to provide oil at a price that China could afford in yuans. In return, Russia would get China’s diplomatic backing and access to manufactured goods that it could afford in rubles. China would then use its subsidized manufacturing to lure primarily Brazil and India into a Bamboo economic zone of fixed prices. China now finds itself attached to an unstable Russian government bogged down in a war that very few nations in the world support.
Brazil has just elected a new socialist leader. The national objective is not driven by a relationship with a common ally (China), but in a common interest of a common economic system (socialism). China anchoring the BRICS does not work without oil purchases being available in yuans.
Europe is heavily indebted. The economy is burdened by regulation and subsidization. Yet, the members’ forms of government are democracies. Their banking system is based on western free enterprise capitalism. Democracies and totalitarian governments are incompatible economically. In a democracy, the people have some say on economic priorities. Such sharing of decisions is impossible in process for a totalitarian government.
The United States anchors western democracies politically and the G-7 economically. The important difference between the positions of the United States and China as anchors in the world’s competing geopolitical and economic systems is that the United States has credible, significant partners as allies in national purpose. China has none.
As to the unattached nations in this described scenario, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and Australia lean toward and depend upon the United States for economic coordination and military support. Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are independent broker nations willing to negotiate with China. But their banking systems are western and their economies rely upon the dollar as the primary medium of exchange. The dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency is critical to the restructuring of any new world order.
We have Ukraine to thank for their courage and heroic determination to resist Russia’s armed aggression at all costs. Russia woefully underestimated the west’s commitment to overriding principles binding all nations, even to the threat of their economic peril. Russia, in the face of any outcome of the war, is weakened. China is further isolated as a totalitarian anchor needing substantial alliance partners.
It is not by coincidence that the map of the world is bifurcated by the visions of two differing philosophies of government, one based on freedom of the individual and the other based on servitude of the individual to the state. Ukraine stands at the very front of the war between these two competing polities.
If a “great reset” is imminent, then the world is in a time of pre-reset posturing.
America is the only country positioned to lead the world to economic prosperity, military security, and family stability through commitment to individual freedom as a primary objective of government.
All the United States has to do to lead the world to a destination of universal freedom is to remain committed to the principles on which America was founded. And in so doing, proving that committing to overriding principles beneficial to all nations is a much superior course of action than acting primarily on the protection of self-interest.
And, in America’s case, the overriding beneficial principles and the protection of self-interest are the same thing.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?