Solving the problem
Solving the problem
Arranging the Groups in Subcoalitions and Coalitions is a complex problem. We must START from SOMEWHERE in order to SOLVE the PROBLEM. A good STARTING POING is the two TRADE DEALS EU made with MERCOSUR and INDIA. There is no EU in AntiNWO's plan. Instead there are Western European Group E1 and Northern - Eastern E2. Western Europeans make the decisions in EU, mainly the large countries, Germany, France, Italy, Spain.
The two trade deals are extremely insignificant because they will not be valid after some time, when there is not EU anymore. They are extremely significant though for the arrangement of the Groups in Subcoalitions and Coalitions. With these two trade deals, Western Europeans, India and Mercosur MADE their CHOICE regarding their Coalition. They decided that they want to be together.
Southern American Group A3 is Mercosur+, it contains Mercosur plus Bolivia, Chile, Peru. They decided to be with Western Europe. India decided to be with Western Europe as well. Western Europeans decided to be with India and Southern American Group A3. So we have a Coalition! It is Western European Group E1, Southern American A3 and India. E1-A3 can be a two-Groups Subcoalition
This makes the problem easier. It was explained that three-Groups Subcoalitions should be avoided, unless there is another three-Groups Subcoalition ready to be added and make a complete Coalition. If we have E1-A3-I Coalition, the rest of the Subcoalitions can be two-Groups. There is a contradiction though with the uniquness of the American continent.
The actual continent is Eurasia. Since ancient times, Eurasia has been divided into two conventional continents, Europe and Asia. Eurasia was connected with Africa before the Suez Canal was made. Europe, Asia and Africa are close to each other. The American continent is an ocean apart from the rest. Atlantic ocean separates the American continent from Europe and Africa. Pacific ocean is between America and Asia.
In the American continent, there are three Groups, Northern A1, Central A2 and Southern A3. These Groups are different than North, Central and South America. Central Group includes countries from North and South America. Since all the other Groups are an ocean apart, it is reasonable to have a Subcoalition with the three American Groups A1, A2, A3. But its is not necessary.
As it was explained in previous article, A1 (USA) may not be that interested in Southern Group A3 as it is in Central Group A2. Plus, with Mercosur - EU deal, Southern Group A3 made its choice. They want to be together with Western Europe. That should happen, if A1 (USA) does not insist to have A1-A2-A3 Subcoalition. We will examine both alternatives.
First, we start with having E1-A3-I Coalition. A1-A2 will be a two-Groups Subcoalition. The rest of the Subcoalitions should have two Groups. It is much better this way. Two-Groups Subcoalitions offer more flexibility and have more choices. There have been talks between E2-R1, E2-R4 and R1-R4. They could form a three-Groups Subcoalition, only if there is another three-Groups Subcoalition that can be added.
A possibility is M1-M2-M3. But the recent war between USA - Israel and Iran has made this more difficult. Iran is in M3. In the past, Iran had good relations with countries in M2. After the war started, these relations have deteriorated. USA has been using military bases in M2 countries and Iran has been bombarding these bases. If M1-M2-M3 is not possible another three-Groups Subcoalition must be found, in order to have E2-R1-R4.
Nevertheless, these three Groups could be in the same Coalition. R1-R4 could be a two-Groups Subcoalition. E2 will need one Group to form a Subcoalition. Western European Group E1 is in a Coalition with A3 and India. The Groups that are close to E2 are M1, M2, M3. One of them could be with E2. The two other will form a Subcoaltion. There are three alternatives, M1-M2, M2-M3, M1-M3.
M1 and M3 are not netxt to each other. But they are not far apart either. Only Iraq separates M1 from M3. Given that relations between M2 countries and Iran have deteriorated, M2-M3 could be problematic. It depends on how relations will be after the end of the war. Probably, it will not take take too long, a couple of months maximum. But no one can predict the length of the war with certainty.
R2-R3 Subcoalition will be based on ASEAN. The four S (Subsaharan) Groups will make two two-Groups Subcoaltions. Let's assume that E2 is in a Subcoalition with M1. Obviously, it can be with M2 or M3. We have seven two-Groups Subcoalitions A1-A2, E1-M1, M2-M3, R1-R4, R2-R3, S1-S2, S3-S4. One of them will be with China and the rest will form two Coalitions with three two-Groups Subcoalitions each.
In previous articles we presented four cases with two-Groups Subcoalitions. These are shown in Table A of Appendix 32. The fourth is the one we have examined so far. A3-E1 is already in a Coalition with India. The leaders of AntiNWO's plan are A1, E2 and China. India can be a leader, if it cancels the trade deal with EU. After that, it can be in the same Coalition with Western European Group E1 which is not EU.
India has been already placed in a Coalition with E1-A3. The rest of the leaders are A1, E2, C. The GROUPS that will form a SUBCOALITION with A1 and E2 will also be LEADERS. In Table B of Appendix 32, we have the ranking order of the leaders. At the bottom of the table, are the five two-Groups Subcoalitions to be assigned to each one of the three Coalitions.
As it can be seen in Table B, A1-A2 and E2-M1 have R1-R4 first on the list. China will get R2-R3 since the other two leaders do not have it as first choice. China's Coalition will be complete. So far we have two Coalitions complete, I with E1-A3 and C with R2-R3. Free formation is an alternative. The five Subcoalitions could choose where they want to be. R1-R4 can choose between A1-A2 and E2-M1.
We are not aware of any talks between A1 and R1-R4. We only know talks between E2 and R1-R4. As far as we know, R1-R4 will choose E2-M1. Suppose that there is not free formation but there is one veto. VETO could have the SAME RESULT as FREE FORMATION. Since both A1-A2 and E2-M1 want R1-R4, it is reasonable to decide it in a random way. Suppose that R1-R4 is assigned randomly to A1-A2.
If R1-R4 Subcoalition wants to be with E2-M1, it can use the veto. Suppose that R1-R4 goes to E2-M1. Next on A1's (A1-A2) list is R2-R3 which has already been assigned to China. After that is M2-M3. However, it has higher ranking in E2's (E2-M1) list. It is in second place. Where M2-M3 will be assinged depends on the method used. If DMPR method is used it will be A1's (A1-A2) turn to pick.
So it will go to M2-M3. The same will happen with two of the three RLS versions. Only in the third version, it will go to E2-M1. In that version, the ranking order in all lists is taken into consideration. S1-S2 will be assigned to E2-M1 and S3-S4 to A1-A2. The result is shown on the right side of Talbe B in Appendix 32. Perhaps A1 (USA) and M3 (Iran) may not want to be in the same Coalition. This will be explained in next article.