Lavrov: Unipolar world order is gone, transition will hurt - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14606536
Lavrov: Unipolar world order is gone, transition will hurt

The unipolar world order has ceased to exist, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview on Thursday, Sputnik has reported.

New powerful new centers of economic growth are emerging in Asia and Latin America, he told the Venezuelan state television.

Old habits die hard. Parting with one’s sense of global dominion is not easy and this process is going to be long and painful, but I’m sure that in the long haul we’ll agree on the need to redistribute our responsibilities from conflict resolution to economics to finance and trade,” Lavrov said.

He "underscored the need to end the longtime practice of using one country’s laws on the territory of another," adding, "all this should be done strictly in line with the UN Charter and without undermining the authority of the UN Security Council."

“We are against any quick fixes here. All these problems should be tackled having fully in mind the hard fact that global politics, economics and finances are no longer directed by a single center, that there are new powerful centers of economic and financial growth now emerging in Asia and Latin America adding political clout to these new economic powerhouses,” the Russian minister said, according to Sputnik.

Russia "wants to enshrine the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states in an international declaration - 'a fundamental principle of the UN Charter which, unfortunately, is often violated'," and also calls a redistribution of votes and quotas, including in the International Monetary Fund, something “we all agreed about ten years ago."

Lavrov warned against the principle of the so-called “legal extraterritoriality” when unilateral sanctions are imposed in circumvention of the UN Security Council and are aimed at undermining a country’s economic and social stability.

Economic ties, trade, technological exchanges all this holds the key to development while one-sided sanctions thwart the countries’ pursuit of a better life,” Lavrov said.

"Bearing in mind that attempts at arbitrary interpretation of the principle of non-interference are regularly cropping up, including in the context of Syria, we wish to consider with all members the possibility of adopting a declaration," the Russian official stated, and added:

"We are categorically opposed to all attempts of destabilization of regimes... some of our partners on the world scene are tempted to, when they dislike a regime, start destabilizing it from within, and then refer to the unrest there, and that something should to be done," Lavrov said, according to Interfax.

The Russian foreign minister added such an initiative has a chance to succeed - "and, it goes without saying, there is the opposition of those who think they have a right not to respect their obligations under the UN Charter."


The unipolar world hasn't yet gone completely, but it is in it's death throws. The days of the empire are numbered. Lavrov correctly points to the fact that the future will be decided by trade and not by military means.
#14606539
Lavrov is basically the pinnacle of the ultimate caricature of 'le happy merchant', from 4chan. He will be proven wrong about trade making war obsolete, just as every 'merchant' before him for the past... forever... has been proven wrong.

It's amazing how Russia is now recycling the same trash-dumpster talking-points that the Americans themselves used in the 1960s, so much so that Lavrov now sounds like John F. Kennedy. Absolute colossal retard millennials will eat it all up because it's wrapped in the Russian flag of 'edginess', much like the enormous baby-boomer retards ate it up when it was wrapped in an American flag of 'freedom' in the 1960s.

Liberal-pacifists still cannot escape from the reality:
Friedrich Engels, 'The Boring War', 1854 wrote:Even with Europe in decay, still a war should have roused the healthy elements; a war should have awakened a lot of hidden powers, and surely so much energy would have been present among 250 million people that at least a respectable battle would have occurred, in which both parties could have reaped some honour, as much honour as courage and bravery can gain on the battlefield.

Karl Marx, 'The Eastern Question', 1885 wrote:The redeeming feature of war is that it puts a nation to the test. As exposure to the atmosphere reduces all mummies to instant dissolution, so war passes supreme judgement upon social systems that have outlived their vitality.
Last edited by Rei Murasame on 03 Oct 2015 15:11, edited 1 time in total.
#14606540
Was there talk of the end of the unipolar world in the 1960? I can't remember that. There wasn't even a unipolar world at the time.

What's the point of all your senseless rambling?

Your white masters are getting thrashed in the ME, time for the rats to leave the sinking ship, Rei.
#14606542
Atlantis wrote:Was there talk of the end of the unipolar world in the 1960?

Yes, there was. See Lyndon B. Johnson, with his deliberately (and hilariously) crafted speeches, which covered over the fact that he was sowing the seeds for more conflicts, and spurring the creation of newly armed local elites in many countries around the world, all while professing 'peace'.

Lyndon B. Johnson is a person that in many ways I actually admire, because what he did worked out pretty well in the longrun.

Atlantis wrote:I can't remember that.

Baby boomers have always had selective memories, so I'm not surprised that you can't remember any of the nonsense that was uttered by politicians back then. The key point is not the end of the multipolar world, but rather, the absurd and frankly stupid idea that this would lead to less conflict.

What an absolute laugh that has been. I was born in 1986. I was born into the world created by your would-be peacenik generation's failure.

By the way, I also support the creation of a multipolar world. But I support that idea because I sincerely love war and I'd like to see more of it.

Atlantis wrote:Your white masters are getting thrashed in the ME, time for the rats to leave the sinking ship, Rei.

I'd call them 'white partners', not so much 'white masters'. East Asians have your back, the ship isn't going to sink unless we say it will.
#14606548
Rei Murasame wrote:The key point is not the end of the multipolar world, but rather, the absurd and frankly stupid idea that this would lead to less conflict.

Yes this is very true. The more the competitors and the more even the odds are between them the more they will each fancy their chances at growing at the expense of another. Competition between military powers pretty much inevitably means warfare. More competition, more warfare.
#14606557
The problem is that the US as the sole remaining superpower has been turning rogue in the last 2 decades. That is not a healthy situation for either the world or the US. Ideally, Europe would unite to form a counter-pole to the US, but most new Europeans hate themselves too much for that to happen. Thus, our only hope is with an alliance of Russia, China and the rest of the non-Western world.
#14606559
taxizen wrote:Yes this is very true. The more the competitors and the more even the odds are between them the more they will each fancy their chances at growing at the expense of another. Competition between military powers pretty much inevitably means warfare. More competition, more warfare.

Pretty much.

_________

Atlantis wrote:Ideally, Europe would unite to form a counter-pole to the US, but most new Europeans hate themselves too much for that to happen.

Well, you would in fact be an example of the problem.

Atlantis wrote:Thus, our only hope is with an alliance of Russia, China and the rest of the non-Western world.

Large swathes of the non-western world will never support Russia against the United States, because that is pointless. Also, Russia and China do not share the same interests in Europe.

  • China wants to sell products and run the silk road and belt across your integrated territory.

  • Russia wants to dis-integrate you and dominate the European energy markets.

  • China wants to grow its influence in Central Asia while keeping Russia out of it, and hopes that integration of Central Asian markets with European markets and and integration of Central Asian markets with East Asian markets, will help them to keep Russia's power in that region attenuated. China does not want to see Russia getting back into the post-Soviet space, because that is not in China's interest.

  • Russia wants to get back into the post-Soviet space.

Those interests do not run parallel to each other. There is no overt 'anti-American alliance' to be found, because most of the Asian governments do not see the world in such monochromatic moralistic terms as you do. Asian governments will choose whatever produces results.

Furthermore, most of China's oil imports come from areas that the United States and United Kingdom have spent the past 12 years fighting over. Do you really think that anyone who has supply chains that connect to manufacturing capacities inside China (ie, pretty much everyone East and West), has any interest in removing the United States or the United Kingdom from the Middle East? For what purpose? To deliberately stall development? To deliberately lose jobs? To deliberately make basic necessities more expensive? To deliberately stall growth? For what? For pity, because someone wants to pity Arabs? Fuck pity.

If the USA and UK want to act as the world's oil services police and the guarantors of open shipping lanes in the Middle East, they are free to do so for as long as they like. That's the Asian perspective when all talking points and domestic political rhetoric are put aside.
#14606677
Rei Murasame wrote:Well, you would in fact be an example of the problem.

Since I seem to be the only Pofo member advocating European integration, that is a strange comment indeed.

Atlantis wrote:Large swathes of the non-western world will never support Russia against the United States, because that is pointless.

China is already the most important trading partner for most emerging and developing countries.

Also, Russia and China do not share the same interests in Europe.

UK/US may have different interests, but continental Europe has more common interests and complementary with Russia than with the US. Lavrov's emphasis on commercial cooperation echoes what continental center-left politicians have been saying for years.

Russia needs German technology, Germany needs Russian resources and markets. Germany supplies China with the machine tools it needs to produce mass-produced low-cost goods that cannot be made in countries with a high living standard in Europe. Thus, there is more complementary with Russia and China than with the UK/US who see the world in terms of military or financial domination.

Furthermore, most of China's oil imports come from areas that the United States and United Kingdom have spent the past 12 years fighting over.

If they stopped fighting we would have a lot more oil, which we could just buy on the open market without actually having to occupy the old fields.

Anyways, it's a buyers market and there are more supply sources than we need.

It is true that the Anglo-Saxons may still have a role as mercenaries to fight foreign wars civilized people would not want to. But we would have to better control them because killing machines that have gone out off control are not very useful.
#14606687
Re-read my post. I'm telling you that Russia and China are not in synchronisation with each other.

You have completely misunderstood the entire post, because you seem to believe that China gives half a fuck about Russia. Newsflash: China doesn't actually care about Russia, and China doesn't actually care about Germany either.

The 'China-Russia Axis' is a figment of your imagination, it's a media mirage, conjured up by Russia, to mislead people like you. This is not some theory of mine, this is a broadly acknowledged fact. This is like in the 1970s - 1990s, when USA-UK asked China if they'd like to stick a knife into Russia's back repeatedly, and China said 'yes', literally every single time. You people didn't believe it was actually happening back then either, so perhaps you'll have to relearn that lesson again when the time comes.

When I tell you that 'no one will support Russia against the USA', and you respond by telling me about China, it shows that you are not thinking.
Last edited by Rei Murasame on 04 Oct 2015 00:20, edited 1 time in total.
#14606691
Atlantis wrote:I don't even have to read your post because you have been saying the same for months. Doesn't mean that it's true.

Indeed, instead we could be living in bizarro world, where somehow magically everything we know about these two countries and their strategic interests is 'wrong', despite the fact that their actions repeatedly demonstrate otherwise.
#14606695
Now, mind you all, but Rei you of all people should understand that I am known to be generally 'pro-Russia'. That being said, I usually find myself agreeing with the actual facts of what you're saying, if not your actual wishes regarding these matters. So let's see if this trend of agreement continues regarding Russian and Chinese interests;

I'm telling you that Russia and China are not in synchronisation with each other.


Powerful elements of both countries elites are wanting to have that synchronization made a reality; doesn't follow that it actually exists, or that it ever really could. Eurasianists believe it, certainly.

You have completely misunderstood the entire post, because you seem to believe that China gives half a fuck about Russia. Newsflash: China doesn't actually care about Russia, and China doesn't actually care about Germany either.


China used to believe itself to be the 'Middle Kingdom', the 'Middle Earth' if you will between Heaven and the Underworld, and desires the Universal Hegemony it once believed itself to have, being the center of the material Cosmos. This is the cultural mindset, obscured by years of colonial humiliation.

The 'China-Russia Axis' is a figment of your imagination, it's a media mirage, conjured up by Russia, to mislead people like you.


Um... I imagine it is useful for China also at the moment.

This is not some theory of mine, this is a broadly acknowledged fact. This is like in the 1970s - 1990s, when USA-UK asked China if they'd like to stick a knife into Russia's back repeatedly, and China said 'yes', literally every single time. You people didn't believe it was actually happening back then either, so perhaps you'll have to relearn that lesson again when the time comes.


As Americans, we naively relished that moment of Nixonian China diplomacy, although it's roots went far deeper.

When I tell you that 'no one will support Russia against the USA', and you respond by telling me about China, it shows that you are not thinking.


That being said, if America is taken down a notch politically, it benefits all other parties, except maybe Israel and England....

So all in all, a pretty good analysis of the bare facts and those alone.
#14606698
Since I seem to be the only Pofo member advocating European integration, that is a strange comment indeed.


I've been arguing over European integration and advocating for much stronger integration for years on Pofo. Well actually since i joined in 2007 and i'm far from being the only other person advocating European integration here.

I know we often have disagreement but we also have much things we agree on and European integration is one of these things

I'm telling you that Russia and China are not in synchronisation with each other.
Powerful elements of both countries elites are wanting to have that synchronization made a reality; doesn't follow that it actually exists, or that it ever really could. Eurasianists believe it, certainly.


EU-Russia would be much more realistic than Russia-China synchronisation in the long term. So i'm agreeing with Rei on that one. But Russia and China do share a multipolar view of the world which is a good thing to fight for in my opinion.
#14606731
Atlantis wrote:UK/US may have different interests, but continental Europe has more common interests and complementary with Russia than with the US. Lavrov's emphasis on commercial cooperation echoes what continental center-left politicians have been saying for years.

This is simply wrong. Continental Europe, the EU, is holding and intends to keep a swathe of real estate, eastern europe from Estonia down to Bulgaria, that the Russians once had and want back, that is a massive geo-strategic conflict of interests. For the UK eastern Europe is not such a big deal, we have what is left of our commonwealth to worry about and we have other important interests elsewhere too, if push comes to shove we could let eastern Europe slide and it would not hurt us. The US too has similarly far flung interests with Eastern Europe not ranking so high among them. Both the US and UK have no particular desire to allow a geo-strategic rival such as Russia to score any wins that would make Russia more powerful but that is pretty much the only reason to keep the Russians out of the East of Europe. For the EU and specifically Germany and eastern European countries like Poland, Russia is your nearest and most dreadful enemy even if you don't realise it. Russian strategists would love to play some Maskirovka on you and dupe you into dropping your guard against them but you'd be a fool to let them.
#14606766
Rei Murasame wrote:despite the fact that their actions repeatedly demonstrate otherwise.

You have not demonstrated anything. You have repeatedly copy-pasted the same old theory from the www, while forgetting to copy-paste the debunking of said theory. There is really no point in writing it all down again. If I had thought that it would make any difference, I would have gone to the trouble of linking the debunking, but I have had to experience often enough that you are not accessible to reason.

taxizen wrote:This is simply wrong.

No that is not wrong, the rapprochement by commerce that led to the demise of the SU is as alive in Lavrov's speech as it is for continental center left politicians. But even the traditionally pro-Atlantic conservative spectrum is getting increasingly frustrated with the destabilizing effect of US expansionism. The lies are becoming increasingly more desperate and transparent. Even with the domination of the Anglophone media you are gradually loosing cultural hegemony. It's just not credible any longer.

The myth that you protected us against the communist is long past its sell-by-date and the myth that you are fighting terrorism isn't credible because the US and its ME allies are the main drivers behind terrorism.

Continental Europe, the EU, is holding and intends to keep a swathe of real estate, eastern europe from Estonia down to Bulgaria, that the Russians once had and want back, that is a massive geo-strategic conflict of interests.

That is too absurd to even comment on. It is turning reality on its head. After 25 years of expansionist rampage, the West is accusing Russia of expansionism. Hypocrisy cannot get anymore blatant. Putin had to take a stand at the Crimea after the Western-inspired fascist coup in Kiev, and he cleverly exposed Western hypocrisy and bloody-mindedness in the ME. I'm in not way defending Russian policy, but as Russian president, I would have done exactly the same.

The US too has similarly far flung interests with Eastern Europe not ranking so high among them.

We wouldn't be in the current mess if the US hadn't turned Europe's periphery in the East and West into a chain of war zones flooding us with refugees and terrorists.

Once the UK has left the EU, we'll see much clearer. The Anglo-Saxon world will draw together and Europe and Russia will rediscover their common interests. My fear is that Oncle Sam will not allow his British poodle to leave because it would weaken the US's grip on Europe.
#14606767
Noelnada wrote:EU-Russia would be much more realistic than Russia-China synchronisation in the long term. So i'm agreeing with Rei on that one. But Russia and China do share a multipolar view of the world which is a good thing to fight for in my opinion.

It goes without saying that Europe/Russia would be a better match than Russia/China; however, the idea of Western imperialists is that we can fuck Russia as hard as we like because the alliance Russia/China cannot happen. Of course it can happen. Everything can happen if the need is big enough. So what we are talking about is not what will happen but what we want to happen. US imperialists want to fuck the Russians and if it means war. It is very definitely not in Europe's interest to fight a proxy war in Europe. Europe needs cooperation and not confrontation. The lessons of the past are very clear.

The EU must never again become a tool of US imperialism as in Ukraine.
#14606806
Atlantis wrote:No that is not wrong, the rapprochement by commerce that led to the demise of the SU is as alive in Lavrov's speech as it is for continental center left politicians. But even the traditionally pro-Atlantic conservative spectrum is getting increasingly frustrated with the destabilizing effect of US expansionism. The lies are becoming increasingly more desperate and transparent. Even with the domination of the Anglophone media you are gradually loosing cultural hegemony. It's just not credible any longer.
He is telling you what you want to hear. It is very much in Russian strategic interests to split the EU from the US/UK and drop it's guard against Russia, it will make their conquest of you all the easier. US strategy bod Zbigniew Brzezinski described Iraq as "The Great Prize" because it had barrel loads of oil (wealth) and a second rate military defending it. For Russian strategists you are the "Great Prize" because you have fabulous productive capacity (wealth) and apart from US/UK/France only a trivial military defending it. They have expanded as far east as they can realistically go without getting into the well prepared and numerous gunsights of the Chinese. Westwards they smell opportunities.
Atlantis wrote:The myth that you protected us against the communist is long past its sell-by-date and the myth that you are fighting terrorism isn't credible because the US and its ME allies are the main drivers behind terrorism.
It wasn't a myth from the end of WW2 to the fall of the berlin wall. Do you think the Soviets would have stopped at berlin if it didn't mean running into the gunsights of their "allies" the US and UK? Communism is a stupid expansionist cult and it is gone but the Russians were an expansionist power before they became infected with Jewish Bolshevism and they are still an expansionist power now they have shaken off that malady. They may well be more dangerous now that they are operating with a modicum of sanity.

Continental Europe, the EU, is holding and intends to keep a swathe of real estate, eastern europe from Estonia down to Bulgaria, that the Russians once had and want back, that is a massive geo-strategic conflict of interests.

Atlantis wrote:That is too absurd to even comment on. It is turning reality on its head. After 25 years of expansionist rampage, the West is accusing Russia of expansionism. Hypocrisy cannot get anymore blatant. Putin had to take a stand at the Crimea after the Western-inspired fascist coup in Kiev, and he cleverly exposed Western hypocrisy and bloody-mindedness in the ME. I'm in not way defending Russian policy, but as Russian president, I would have done exactly the same.
Absurd? Germany finally has it's mitteleuropa and after the desolation of soviet insanity the eastern countries even (desperately) want to be in your camp. Not only that but because you are in the NATO block the US/UK are happy to let you have it so you need not fear your western flank. You have won the jackpot but it seems it came too easily to you and you are ready to throw it away back to the Russians. The eastern countries don't just want you for your superior knowledge of commerce and production that can make them all happy and prosperous, they want you (or someone) to keep them safe from the great and hungry bear on their borders. The way you talk you are ready not just to throw them back into the maw of the bear but yourselves too. Hitler failed for being too hard and aggressive, you will fail just as hard by being too soft and passive. Can you not learn the middle way? Speak softly and carry a big stick?
Atlantis wrote:
Once the UK has left the EU, we'll see much clearer. The Anglo-Saxon world will draw together and Europe and Russia will rediscover their common interests. My fear is that Oncle Sam will not allow his British poodle to leave because it would weaken the US's grip on Europe.

The UK's presence or absence in the EU does not matter so much, what matters is whether you (Germany) stay in NATO or end up in a new Warsaw Pact with the Russians.
#14606828
Taxizen wrote:Communism is a stupid expansionist cult and it is gone but the Russians were an expansionist power before they became infected with Jewish Bolshevism and they are still an expansionist power now they have shaken off that malady.


The fuck? You went from some weird leftie mutualist, to libertarian, to neo-reactionary, to...nazi?
#14606833
taxizen wrote:but the Russians were an expansionist power before they became infected with Jewish Bolshevism
Would you talk similarly about Jewish Physics or indeed Jewish banking? Despite being labeled as a Nazi, despite receiving a yellow card for being a Nazi, I don't actually believe in a significant secular Jewish supremacism prior to the second world war. So while we must certainly combat the disgusting racists that try to blame Bolshevism on the Russians, I don't think Bolshevism can meaningfully described as Jewish any more than modern Physics was Jewish. They were both at the core intellectual endeavours that naturally attracted a high number of people of Jewish descent.
Last edited by Rich on 04 Oct 2015 15:58, edited 2 times in total.
#14606834
Conscript wrote:The fuck?

He doesn't have to be a Nazi to acknowledge that there was a strong Russian-Jewish element in the Bolshevik revolution which basically ended up taking over pretty much everything, topped by Joseph Stalin who was essentially a Great Russian Chauvinist in all his actions despite being a Georgian.

You could be literally Vladimir Lenin and figure that out.

I mean, look for example at the dire warnings that Lenin (who was some kind of Siberian, hence why he was quite rightly against Russian Chauvinism, and was in favour of minority groups getting autonomy) gave about the Great Russian Chauvinists, and then look at what happened immediately after Lenin's death. Stalin got to be the leader, and people like Felix Dzerzhinsky and Grigol Ordzhonikidze were able to just run around beating up anyone they felt like.

Ordzhonikidze would later be killed himself, by the Jews and the Russians, because his usefulness had expired. So even going along with them would not be enough to prevent a person from being sent down when the time came.

September 16, Monday At Lexington, Missouri, Ma[…]

The Popular Vote...

No it doesn't. It works as it was designed. Stop[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1173496164[…]

Al Jazeera is indeed the most proper news source f[…]