BRICS: a step towards a new world order?

[ST1976]

double post

 

[ST1976]

1 Pakistani=10 Hindu equation is obsolete. They have nuclear warhead now. They have created an effective nuclear deterrence against India.

i read Pakistan have more nuclear weapons than India.
anyway, fencing on India-Pakistan border, and having improved relation between the 2 nations also matter....
we dont find Pakistan is building its military against india. its something this is how the whole world is. and Pakistan would be a strong nation, true, with matching countries like Egypt, Turkey etc

1 Pakistani=10 Hindu equation is obsolete. They have nuclear warhead now. They have created an effective nuclear deterrence against India.

Pakistan would be included in BRICS. we have been supporting Pakistan as an Islamic nuclear deterrence. more Pakistan is with China, away from US-west, more it is in favour of India.
Pakistan with Chinese arms, build up, will finally help this part of world ...

 

[ST1976]

What is Islamic nuclear deterrence?

i just said, it doesn't mean anything.....
Pakistan is the only nuclear warhead country in Islamic countries. only Islamic state with nuclear weapons...
virtually, nuclear weapons are just to say, it doesn't mean anything. India recognise Pakistani nuclear state as responsible as India. nuclear holding by Pakistan is recognised by India, as two responsible countries.

If Bangladesh goes nuclear, I hope, the Indians will accept a nuclear Bangladesh the same way they have accepted a nuclear Pakistan.

Pakistan didn't signed NPT similar to India
and, most importantly, Pakistan could live with sanctions after tests, which BD is hard to face...

No signing of NPT does not mean Pakistan can proliferate nuclear testing s without being slapped with new sanctions.

Why a poor country Pakistan should have nuclear bombs? Rather, it should use money to develop agriculture and consumer-related industries.

Do you want to cut nuclear bombs into many pieces and eat them to fill your stomach? Not that tasty.

honestly, I find Bangladesh similar to Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Burma type countries, .... i would say that the industrialisation of Bangladesh will help it match Vietnam and exceed it....
while Pakistan is a power politics similar to Turkey, Iran, Indonesia, Egypt etc.
Pakistan as current, has to be a powerful country, somewhere in between Turkey to Indonesia.
Pakistan is a middle order country like India, Philippines, Indonesia. Pakistan is little laggard than newly industrialized countries but its fate is to finally join the NICs,
as discussed in thread as below

Newly Industrialized Countries- current

The category of newly industrialized country (NIC), newly industrialized economy (NIE)[1] or middle income country[2] is a socioeconomic classification applied to several countries around the world by political scientists and economists. They represent a subset of developing countries whose...

pdf.defence.pk

 

[ST1976]

@@blue Ocean

Why a poor country Pakistan should have nuclear bombs?

1. Pakistan is sorrounded by hostile neighbours. Iran, India and Afghanistan all have territorial disputes with it. India even dismembered it once.
2. Pak has great power aspirations- an aspiration which it inherits as a successor state of the erstwhile Mughal Empire and Delhi Sultanate.
3. As a Citadel of Islam, it has a responsibility of security for the Ummah,

Regards

Nuclear holding of Pakistan, as a non-NPT signatory, is recognised by India also.
It was statement by Mr Kalam, then Indian president, that because of nuclear weapons war didn't occur between India-Pakistan military stand off in 2002

Iran, North Korea and Israel first signed NPT and then deceived. while Pakistan, the 7th ranked non-NPT signatory never deceived
it has been issue that If China has nuclear weapons then 6th ranked India did test in 1974, and if India has nuclear then this how the things happened with Pakistan......

 

[ST1976]

Opinion | A booming US economy and a Chinese crash? Think again

China is using its downturn to deflate bubbles and raise productivity while the US is doing the opposite – feeding the Bernanke bubble and hoping for an AI cure for falling productivity

www.scmp.com

i guess, the way we find only CHinese products in Western market, its would have a effect on CHina.
while its also true that major buyers of Chinese products are also India-Brazil type countries. India's largest trade partner CHina, with highest trade deficit, India did business of loss with CHina ....."

countries like India-Brazil are too many in world. CHinese flag everywhere...... China has business in whole world, who are similar to India-Brazil-Russia to do business of loss with China

 

[ST1976]

Wrong example -- India has 11 times more people than Japan and 16 times more people than Germany. Even with a living standard 1/10th of those countries it will exceed the GDP of those countries. the living standards in India are way crappier than Japan and Germany.

@F-22Raptor

countries like India have 'undocumented' part of GDP. the ratio of economy we don't document.
we also have news, US's economy on PPP is below to half of Indian economy on PPP
(when we adjust 'bubble' of US economy.)

 

[ST1976]

I seriously hope Russia vetoes the inclusion of corrupt pakistani Generals in BRICS.

i find, if you are with China only then it also something enough for brics membership....... we have Congo-Bangladesh type LDC members in line, while Pakistan exceed Iran, Egypt type good-big members. we think Pakistan do bit more than Iran, Egypt also, ... we will finally get more strength.
what Bangladesh or African countries type LDC members bring for brics? Pakistan, Iran, Egypt may at least show a voice with strength to Saudi Arabia's, Brazil's, Argentina's ' duplicate people.....

US's 'clones' have taken few tables

 

[jhungary]

BRICS can NEVER be equal share as long as China is part of the major party. Ask China whether they will bend down their Financial Policy to the like of Russia or South Africa and you will know. The same thing happening to EU will definitely happened to BRICS where Germany and France dislike being on equal term with country like Hungary or Latvia. And you are talking about Germany or France being 3 to 5 times the size in term of economy vis-a-vis Hungary/Latvia. And China is 3 to 4 times the size of the entire BRICS combine.

BRICS are a Chinese enrichment club, there are no absolute advantage for anyone in BRICS other than China, that's pretty clear from the get go, yes, the other country might have a taste of glory from partnering with China, and they should, but it would be kidding yourselves if any country will think either they can be the same seat at China in BRICS or it will benefit them more than the other.

 

[ST1976]

BRICS can NEVER be equal share as long as China is part of the major party. Ask China whether they will bend down their Financial Policy to the like of Russia or South Africa and you will know. The same thing happening to EU will definitely happened to BRICS where Germany and France dislike being on equal term with country like Hungary or Latvia. And you are talking about Germany or France being 3 to 5 times the size in term of economy vis-a-vis Hungary/Latvia. And China is 3 to 4 times the size of the entire BRICS combine.

BRICS are a Chinese enrichment club, there are no absolute advantage for anyone in BRICS other than China, that's pretty clear from the get go, yes, the other country might have a taste of glory from partnering with China, and they should, but it would be kidding yourselves if any country will think either they can be the same seat at China in BRICS or it will benefit them more than the other.

brics has only 3 countries, remaining you all may come, as many as you people wish, and thats it...
and 3 countries are China, India, Russia. as part of 'multi polar world' policy, in fact, we will finally be left with a multi polar world, where China, India and Russia will be different poles. thats how we all helping each others to have separate poles

 

[jhungary]

brics has only 3 countries, remaining you all may come, as many as you people wish, and thats it...
and 3 countries are China, India, Russia. as part of 'multi polar world' policy, in fact, we will finally be left with a multi polar world, where China, India and Russia will be different poles. thats how we all helping each others to have separate poles

Again, Russia is a 2.4 trillions dollar economy at their best time while India is somewhere less than 4. You think China will look at it the same when they have an 18 trillion economy? lol. You don't even have visa free visit between BRICS and let alone freedom of movement like the Schengen in the EU, if so, how can it ever be equal?

It would not be a multi-polar world in our lifetime(next 5-60 years), as long as US and EU align their interest, because you are talking about 2/3 of world economy and 3/4 of world military power right there. And even if by any chance there are multi-polar world, it will not be anyone but China being the other polar.

 

[ST1976]

Iran is different from Iraq , geographically it is much bigger and look at topography of iran , it is not flat desert like iraq

and the population of iran is far higher than iran , far stronger due to their advanced military ..

no , iran wont face US force symetrically , they will attack asymetrically.

what do you think US will have left when all their assets are shot down , no tanker air refueller , no ISR planes / AWACS planes , no AIrbase to launch strikes , no warships close enough to attack iran , no carriers left as iran sank them all , no diego garcia base as iran bombarded it , no country in middle east will be hosting US forces and if they do these will be bombed by iran missiles..

the COST of war with iran will destroy US military and USA as it will be force to reenact forced military conscription and then YOU WILL See massive demonstartion refusing to serve , then the CIVIL WAR in America will begin , splitting it into 2.

Are the Americans ready for another Iraq?
Netanyahu is taking advantage of the war in Gaza to push the United States into a direct confrontation with Iran.

Published On 23 Nov 2023

Smoke rises following Israeli artilley shelling on the village of Beit Lif, along Lebanon's southern border with northern Israel on November 13, 2023 [AFP]
Away from the media spotlight which remains on Israel’s war on Gaza, there are reports of growing confrontations between the Shia militias of Syria and Iraq and the American soldiers stationed in these countries. There are even reports, eagerly suppressed by both the US and Iran, of an increasing number of American casualties being treated in the region’s hospitals, which makes the situation all the more dangerous and susceptible to an unintended and sudden escalation.

Since the beginning of this latest Gaza war, the international community found solace in the fact that Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Iran-backed Lebanese militia Hezbollah, has publicly tried to de-escalate the situation and made clear that he is not seeking an immediate direct engagement with Israel or its allies. The fact that he had to come out and do so twice within a week, however, speaks volumes about the build-up of pressure in the region, which might get out of control at any moment.

While we live through the unravelling of one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes since World War II – the collective punishment of a besieged population of 2.3 million, which has already resulted in the deaths of more than 14,000 people, including over 5000 children – the G7 leaders have struggled even to utter the word “ceasefire”.

Instead, the US and its allies have rallied to call only for much more diluted, inconsequential, and short-lived “humanitarian pauses”. Even as a four-day truce was finally agreed after 47 days of war crimes and indiscriminate violence on Wednesday, the US and its allies did not hesitate to announce their support for Israel’s declared intention to continue its brutal and disproportionate attacks on Gaza after the end of this short “pause” in hostilities.

By effectively giving Israel a carte blanche to do whatever it pleases in Gaza without any consideration of international law or the most basic human rights of the Palestinians, these states shattered their self-constructed image as the guardians of a “rules-based world order”.

They did so partly because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu manipulated their leaders and elites (who seem to be totally disconnected from the populations they represent) to buy into the misleading narrative that on October 7, Israel has experienced an event comparable to the Holocaust at the hands of an evil force that is identical to ISIS.

By evoking memories of the Holocaust, Netanyahu managed to ascribe a level of sanctity to Israel’s unlawful and totally disproportionate reaction, projecting himself and his country as a perpetual victim and creating disdain for any attempt to question or criticise his narrative, both within Israel and in the Western world.

And by likening Hamas to ISIS, he was able to further dehumanise Palestinians and convince the international community of the need to annihilate Gaza to eradicate Hamas, just as they had to do so a few years ago in Mosul to eradicate ISIS.

This, of course, ignores the fact that, unlike ISIS, Hamas is driven not by a blind ideology that requires it to kill nonadherents across the globe. Netanyahu knows well that Hamas is more than just a group of fighters – he knows that it is an idea that is rooted in the aspirations of an oppressed population to resist and liberate itself from the shackles of its oppressors. Even if Israel somehow goes on to kill all the existing Hamas fighters, which is inconceivable without the unleashing of a human catastrophe of biblical proportions on the region, it will only have sown the seeds for a new generation of resistance, united under Hamas or a different avatar, that will make the world yearn for the moderateness of the earlier one.

So, if Netanyahu knows all this, why is he working so hard to convince the world that Hamas is the same as ISIS and thus has to be completely eliminated at any cost?

The answer is simple: Benjamin Netanyahu’s objective, beyond unleashing his wrath on Gaza with impunity, is to convince or manipulate the US into fighting Iran on his behalf. This is something that the veteran Israeli Prime Minister has consistently been advocating ever since the US has done his bidding in Iraq. And he is succeeding – the US has never been as close to an actual confrontation with Iran as it is today.

Iran, on the other hand, and despite its high-pitch rhetoric, remains keen to avoid a direct confrontation with the US. Iran had already made it clear that it did not want to go to war with the US when it refrained from responding in any major way to the January 2020 assassination of its Major General, Qasem Soleimani. Iran’s distaste for escalation was also apparent in its muted response to repeated bombings of Iranian bases in Syria and Iraq by the US and Israel prior to October 7.

In the wake of its first significant diplomatic success against the US since 1979 – which included the unfreezing of $6bn in Iranian assets held in South Korea – rather than embarking on a costly direct confrontation, Iran clearly prefers to act through its various proxy armed groups in the region. These groups have been engaged in a controlled escalation against Israel and the US since October 7 to demonstrate their readiness to act as a deterrent while preventing Iran from being forced into a direct war.

The strongest among Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah, no longer enjoys the regional standing that it once did due to its support of Bashar al-Assad against the Syrian people in the civil war. Hezbollah is also wary of dragging its fragile home country, Lebanon, into a war that is not its own (considering that Hamas carried the attack on Israel without consulting Hezbollah), and that will inevitably lead to Lebanon’s total economic collapse.

Furthermore, Hezbollah’s praise for the deal Lebanon reached with Israel on the Karish gas field demonstrates its pragmatism in light of the precarious political and economic situation in Lebanon. Hezbollah, for now, is content with helping their ally, Hamas, by ensuring substantial Israeli forces are committed to the north, thus relieving some pressure off Gaza while exacerbating the economic and social woes of Israel by forcing the evacuation of Israelis from the north.

However, despite both Iran and Hezbollah’s desire to avoid a direct confrontation with the US, Netanyahu appears determined to secure his political survival at any cost. In the wake of the biggest intelligence failure in the history of Israel taking place under his watch, Netanyahu declared a religious war on the Palestinians, likening them to Amalekites, thus justifying their genocide, enforced emergency laws by formally declaring war for the first time since 1973, called the army and the reservists, thereby arm-twisting the entire Israeli society into partnership with him and closing the doors to any critical voices against his innumerable failures.

Netanyahu’s repeated provocations and especially his presentation of the war as a religious one, coupled with the US reluctance to reign him in and de-escalate, mean that there is a serious risk of the conflict in Gaza eventually morphing into a much larger regional conflagration, one in the face of which Iran will no longer be able to calm its own proxies in the region.

The region is already at a boiling point. There is a growing antipathy among the Arab, Muslim and wider Global South populations towards the US, whom they see as being complicit in Israel’s war crimes. With the recent Arab uprising still fresh in their memory, the Arab leaders will be careful not to test their populations and be seen as aligning with the US. It is highly probable that in such a volatile situation, Israel will engineer a situation that will instigate a direct confrontation between the US and Iran. It is up to the US to decide if it is willing to become a partner in blood with Netanyahu in this region and get embroiled here for another 10 years, replaying or perhaps even dwarfing their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are the Americans ready for another Iraq?

Netanyahu is taking advantage of the war in Gaza to push the United States into a direct confrontation with Iran.

www.aljazeera.com

it may be something, "if US-west lose a real war, it may result in losing all the wars of past." and a direct war with Iran is the one im talking about....