BRICS and Ukraine
The BRICS economic partnership was formed during the Obama administration. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) watched U.S. President Obama subcontract U.S. trade policy to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street.
In the aftermath of the 2007 economic crisis, created by Congress and banking interests, the BRICS group identified two central points of ‘western’ financial influence that concerned them.
Following the financial crisis, the relationships around the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), EU central banks and various multinational institutions and multinational corporations, merged even closer with the government.
The priorities of the Davos and World Economic Forum (WEF) crowd were now virtually indistinguishable from many national governments. We are almost twenty years downstream from that inflection point, and we are seeing the outcomes.
The WEF essentially flipped the traditional record of ‘fascism’. Instead of government telling corporations how to operate, the modern version was now corporate assemblies giving direct instructions to installed politicians for government policy.
Put another way, multinational corporations are telling government officials what to do. Think of “The Great Reset” or “Build Back Better” or climate change (Paris Treaty), as recent examples. Worse yet, western governments are doing exactly what the WEF has told them to do.
This corporate control of government is exactly what the BRICS assembly foresaw when they assembled. When multinational corporations run the policy of western government, there is going to be a problem. In the bigger picture, the BRICS assembly are essentially leaders who do not want corporations and multinational banks running their government.
As a result, if you really boil it down, what you find is the BRICS group oppose the WEF business model.
BRICS are not against capitalism in its original form per se’. Rather the BRICS assembly was/is against corporatism controlling the outcome of government policy.
The leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa joined together in order to make sure their subset of economic power put government back at the top of the control/power dynamic, and multinational corporations under them. This is their essential commonality.
President Obama, and the people around him from Hyde Park, were/are domestically focused ideologues. Much has been written about them, and we will not repeat. However, the lesser emphasized point of the Obama era is how issues that touched on foreign policy were subcontracted to others.
Foreign policy was not a central focus for the Chicago team. Giving Hillary Clinton the Dept of State really was not considered a concession. The Obama group were laser focused on fundamental change inside the United States.
The Obama network’s aspirations were to reduce the geopolitical status of the U.S on the world stage, through the same approach the anti-colonialists would seek to break up the British colonial power structures. This is an important reference point often missed.
Hillary Clinton could essentially manage the State Dept as she wanted, as long as the overarching intent of the Obama policy was maintained. Spreading the wealth, diminishing global U.S influence, and raising up the rest of the world was the only objective of Obama foreign policy Clinton was expected to maintain.
President Obama took that outlook toward U.S. strategic trade interests. This is why President Obama subcontracted trade policy to the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue (pictured above).
During President Obama’s terms in office, the U.S. CoC, the lobbying entity of Wall Street, literally was in charge of trade policy. The U.S. CoC wrote the language, the actual terms and conditions of U.S. government trade policy.
At the time when the U.S. CoC was permitted to do this, the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal was being written. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was literally writing the language in the TPP and negotiating with the other nations involved. Put another way, the policy arm of multinational Wall Street corporations was writing trade agreements.
Can you see how the corporations were positioned to support globalism?
On the Atlantic side, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was also coming once TPP was finished. It was not the U.S. government negotiating these terms, it was Wall Street and the Multinational Corporate and Financial establishment, via the Chamber of Commerce, writing these deals. See the problem?
The leaders within BRICS could see the future of what this meant. Everything is about the economics. There are trillions at stake.
The Word Economic Forum, the assembly of the multinational corporations and banks in control of economics and trade, would now be dictating policy to NATO, the European Union, Central Banks, the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and eventually the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The BRICS nations could see that corporations would be in control of western government finance and trade, and as a consequence, when those same multinationals approached them for trade negotiations, the size of influence of the corporations could be too massive to fight.
BRICS assembled in 2009 to unite, defend and combat this problem. This was their core mission, their commonality.
When President Trump was elected, for the first time since their assembly, BRICS saw a U.S. President with a completely different agenda. Donald Trump was not in favor of multinational corporations running and influencing government. Ideologically, as an economic nationalist, Trump was of the same mindset as the BRICS group. WATCH (1 minute):
When President Trump took office, he literally tore up the TPP trade agreement that Tom Donohue had established; he kicked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce out of government, and he established his own trade negotiating teams to put government back in charge of trade policy.
President Trump took us out of TPP, withdrew from the Paris Climate Treaty, dropped TTIP, triggered NAFTA renegotiations, initiated tariffs against our economic adversaries (impacting multinationals), and told NATO to start preparing to take care of themselves. President Trump was the first economic nationalist president in modern history.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House Trade and Economic Advisor Peter Navarro took over from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Trump established the economic and trade goals, the team worked the granular details, and ultimately Trump made the decisions, yes or no. After Trump took this approach, the BRICS group essentially stopped pushing against the dollarization of global commerce.
With the United States through President Trump now confronting the WEF, NATO, the EU and all the multinationals (often called globalists), the BRICS team could pause their mission for a dollar alternative.
Factually, BRICS didn’t even generate much momentum during President Trump’s first term, because the U.S. trade and economic policy known as ‘America First‘, was essentially in alignment with a more nationalistic BRICS mission.
Unfortunately, it was the scale of the WEF, EU, NATO and multinational opposition to President Trump that eventually won the political battle.
All the multinational corporations, including Big Tech and ideological globalists in media, aligned to remove President Trump. That was the scale of his opposition, and COVID-19 represented the tool they could use.
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, literally just days after the election, the BRICS group was back on the phone planning to start meetings again in 2021 on the sidelines of the G20 summit. The BRICS group came back together during Biden because the multinationals were back in control and dedollarization became a goal again.
For obvious reasons, part of the BRICS agenda is to create a trade currency that is not the dollar. The western sanctions against Russia showed them the risk.
In many very direct ways, what we saw come out of the Russia -vs- Ukraine crisis is a geopolitical battle between the outlook of BRICS (economic nationalists) and the NATO, EU, World Economic Forum, multinational corporate assembly, i.e. economic globalists. Despite the sanctions, China and India continued purchasing Russian energy products in support.
At stake in the Ukraine battle is the modern structure of the global economy and international politics. This is why we saw the people behind Joe Biden, Samantha Power, USAID, along with NATO, the EU and all of the affiliates under the control of the World Economic Forum going so hard against Russia.
EXAMPLE: India would not denounce Russia during the United Nations Security Council vote. Biden retaliated.
- The Biden administration is looking whether to apply or waive sanctions on India for its purchase of the S-400 Triumf missile defense system from Russia, under Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA)
- Lu’s remarks came as India drew criticism from US lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, at a hearing on the “US relationship with India” for being among 35 nations that abstained Wednesday from a UN vote to rebuke Russia’s invasion. (LINK)
We already know which side of this geopolitical battle corporate media, Big Tech, Hollywood and the social media control officer’s support, unbridled globalism.
However, President Trump won reelection, and with that outcome the end of the Ukraine conflict, combined with an unraveling of the sanctions against Russia, becomes an objective. Not so much to support Russia, but more to weaken the BRICS effort for a dollar alternative.
Keep in mind, these are the ‘trillions at stake’ elements. President Trump restraining the World Economic Forum influence, diminishing the role of corporatism in global government, and simultaneously supporting economic nationalism.
All of those interests are not going to give up their position without a fight. Ukraine represents a very significant frontline in this battle. At the end of this high-stakes conflict, is the image we have been using to highlight the WEF’s preferred global outcome.
Post a Comment