Subgroups determine Groups

Subgroups is an important and very useful feature in AntiNWO's compromise plan. Subgroups will be specified after groups are finalized. On the other hand, subgroups could determine a group's composition. Participation in a subgroup may be more important than participation in a group. Members in a subgroup will have closer relations and these could be more crucial than relations with the rest of the Group.

Unlike NWO, AntiNWO will not impose anything on Groups. In the end, it will be Group members that will take all the decisions. Nevertheless, AntiNWO will greatly assist Groups in the decision making. AntiNWO's group organizational model will be optional for Groups but it is expected to be the standard. Group members will decide how tight or loose relations will be in a group.

Also they will decide if there will be subgroups, how the groups will be divided and how much autonomy subgroups will have. Countries will have much closer relations with others in the same subgroup. Most likely relations with the rest of the group would be at subgroup level. Countries will cooperate with others in their subgroup and then subgroups in the same Group will collaborate. At another level, there will be relations among Groups.

We will use Group 4 as an example and there are reasons for that. In Groups 1 and 2, there is little room for fine tuning in terms of composition. In Sub-Saharan groups 6 and 7 and Eastern Asian Groups 9 and 10 compositions are still unknown. In Group 4, AntiNWO initially had included twenty six countries but there are many alternative compositions. There is a lot of room regarding Group's composition which affects neighboring Groups as well. Let's take first the scenario where Turkiye participates in Group 8 with Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

In order to have approximately equal populations in all groups, Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) and Azerbaijan would have to participate in Group 4. They were in Russian Empire and Soviet Union. Currently they are in Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) with Russia, Belarus, Moldova and Armenia. Ukraine and Georgia were members but withdrew. CIS started with all ex-Soviet countries, except Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania).

If German Wannabes (Poland, Czech Republic, Baltic countries) are in the Group 4, one possible division in subgroups is; A) German Wannabes B) Greko-Thraco-Illyrian (Balkan, Hungary, Slovakia) C) Kievan Rus (Russia, Belarus, Ukraine) D) Central Asia and Azerbaijan. Armenia and Georgia will be in subgroups C or D. Together C and D make the initial CIS, except Moldova which could be in Greko-Thraco-Illyrian subgroup B.

It is possible that German Wannabes and Greko-Thraco-Illyrian countries form one subgroup. In that case we could have three subgroups; A) German Wannabes and Greko-Thraco-Illyrian B) Kievan Rus C) Central Asian and Azerbaijan. If B and C are together, there could be two subgroups; A) German Wannabes and Greko-Thraco-Illyrian B) Kievan Rus and Central Asian - Azerbaijan. Ukraine could be in subgroup A.

Most of the countries in subgroup A above, are currently EU members. So they could form an informal subgroup in EU. Countries that are not currently EU members are Serbia, Montenegro, Moldova, Bosnia, Albania. We need to point out that we are referring to the final subgroups. Initially, if there is a two steps exit from EU, two subgroups will merge to form the core of Group 4.

Similar divisions can be done if instead of German Wannabes, Italy participates in Group 4. The three subgroups could be; A) Italy and Greko-Thraco-Illyrian B) Kievan Rus C) Central Asia and Azerbaijan. Or there could be two subgroups; A) Italy and Greko-Thraco-Illyrian B) Kievan Rus and Central Asia - Azerbaijan. We must give special attention to these options because they could be final ones, if Italy and Turkiye make rational decisions.

If Italy makes a rational decision, it is certain that it will participate in Group 4. For Turkiye it is not as clear but at a first glance it seems that if they make a rational decision, they should be in Group 8 with Muslim countries. In this way they can play an important role in the Muslim world. In that scenario, there would be relatively autonomous subgroups in Group 4, most likely one of the two alternatives just described.

Of course we can't be certain about Italy's or Turkiye's decision. There could be Turkiye participating in Group 4 instead of Central Asian countries and Azerbaijan. In that scenario a possible division in subgroups is; A) German Wannabes and Greko-Thraco-Illyrian countries and B) Kievan Rus, Turkiye, Georgia, Armenia. Again most countries in the first subgroup are already EU members.

If Italy is in the Group instead of German Wannabes, the subgroups could be; A) Italy and Greko-Thraco- Illyrian B) Kievan Rus, Turkiye, Georgia, Armenia. We only gave a few examples. The possible alternatives are very many. Anyone may be able to think of many more ways of dividing in subgroups for possible compositions of Group 4.

Eventually either Italy or German Wannabes will participate in group 4. Also it will be either Turkiye or Central Asian countries and Azerbaijan. There are also options where German Wannabes and Central Asia - Azerbaijan are divided. In the case of German Wannabes between Groups 3 and 4 and in the case of Central Asia - Azerbaijan between Groups 4 and 8 (Poland's swap).

Italy or German Wannabes (and Turkiye) should consider the potential subgroups carefully when making their decision. Damned EU which will become Group 3 does not give such an option. In Group 4 they could be in a subgroup they like which could be more important than the rest of the group. The same reasoning regarding subgroups can be applied to any other group.

In Group 8, Central Asian countries and Azerbaijan could be one subgroup and Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan another. In Group 5, African Arab countries could be a first subgroup and Asian Arab countries a second. In Group 2, MERCOSUR, PARLACEN, Andean Community could be three subgroups. In Group 3, they could include subgroups' feature in EU's defective organizational model. One option would be if Germanic countries formed a subgroup and Celtic another. Finland and Austria could be with Germanic countries, although they are clearly not Germanic.

Group composition will determine how subgroups will be and vice versa potential subgroups could greatly influence the groups' composition. The first level of cooperation would be inside a subgroup. At a second level there could be collaboration among subgroups. It may end up being a lot more important the subgroup than the group a country is in. This will happen if subgroups have relative autonomy, something that will be decided by the members of each group.