Coalitions of countries 2
Coalitions of countries 2
Coalitions of Countries is very flexible and the best proposal for relations between countries. Currently, countries have good relations with other countries that are far away and bad relations with countries that are next to them. Having Coalitions of Countries with no Groups gives the opportunity to place countries in Coalitions according to relations and not spatial proximity.
China, N. Korea, Taiwan, Mongolia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen etc could be in the same Coalition. Also many African countries can be included. USA, Canada, Greenland, Israel etc can be in another. Some Muslim countries can also participate. USA has good relations with some Muslim countries and bad with other. An alternative is to have all or most Muslim countries in one Coalition.
Obviously, RUSSIA, BELARUS and UKRAINE must be TOGETHER with MOST EASTERN EUROPEAN countries, at LEAST ALL ORTHODOX. Preferably they will be in the same Coalition with all of them (Eastern European) but this is not necessary. Whether Western European countries will be in that Coalition is a wholly different issue. All European countries could be in the same Coalition but they could also be in different Coalitions.
Western European NWO has placed puppet governments in many Eastern European countries. This was done according to NWO's plan which will be terminated, one way or the other. Puppets in Eastern Europe have good relations with their puppeteers in Western. But these relations are superficial, temporary, imposed by NWO and do not count. More solid, real relations with deeper roots that have been cultivated throughout long periods should be taken into account.
Most of what was explained for Coalitions of Groups can also be used for Coalitions of Countries, Reasoning for Coalitions, (general) Agreement, Free Formation, DMPR, RLS, Incomplete Coalitions, Initial Arrangement etc. There can be (general) Agreement or Free Formation. Or it can be combination of Free Formation and Agreement. If no Agreement can be made, DMPR and RLS are fair ways to resolve the issue.
The Leaders of decision making will be again China, India, North America, Eastern Europe. India can only be a Leader if it cancels the trade deal with EU. Afterwards, it can be in the same Coalition with Western Europe, not EU. Western Europe can't be a Leader because it is the main supporter of NWO's plan and the main opponent of AntiNWO's plan. How can Western Europe be a leader in a plan that it strongly opposes?
Can Leaders be in the same Coalition? Yes, if the availability reasoning is followed. Coalitions (complete or incomplete) will be formed only with the available Groups and the rest will be placed in Pseudo-Coalitions. Otherwise, it makes sense that the Leaders will be the ones that will gather the rest of the countries (or Groups) around them to form Coalitions. In that case, the Leaders should be in different Coalitions
Free trade is a win-lose situation. Countries that benefit from free trade try to impose it on the rest. Like in the case of Groups, Free Trade reasoning can be followed. Those countries that want free trade should be placed in one or two Free Trade Coalitions. The rest that do not want free trade should be placed in Coalitions that do not have free trade. It is a fair and reasonalbe reasoning that can be combined with other reasonings.
Decision makers are not only the Leaders but also the Assistants. NWO's supporters are Non-Participants. Let's assume that decision makers are able to reach an Initial Agreement regarding the four Coalitions. They can also specify a time in which Coalitions can be modified, before the Final Arrangement. Suppose that the time is twenty years. In that time, one, two or more modifications can be made.
If there is no Agreement, DMPR or RLS can be used. Most likely, there will be Agreement for some countries. So there can be DMPR or RLS for the rest. Agreement can be combined with DMPR or RLS. Another alternative is to have Incomplete Coalitions with Free Formation. Without (general) Agreement, some countries will form Incomplete Coalitions.
Incomplete Coalitions do not have to be four because decision makers can dump the non participating countries in one or two Pseudo-Coalitions. Incomplete Coalitions can divide the rest of the countries among them. If there is no Agreement, DMPR or RLS can be used. Probably there will be Agreement regarding some of the countries. DMPR or RLS can be used for the rest.
Free Formation can be combined with Agreement and DMPR or RLS. Another alternative is to have Free Formation all the way. Incomplete Coalitions will have to wait until enough countries are added and they become complete. Probably, they will have to wait for decades. However that may not be a problem because they will be able to function well as Incomplete.
Most of what was explained in Coalitions of Groups is valid for Coalitions of Countries. The only difference is that instead of having Groups forming Coalitions, we have countries doing that. Coalitions of Countries is a proposal of AntiNWO. If decision makers prefer Coalitions of Countries instead of Coalitions of Groups, they can have that. It is acceptable by AntiNWO but not preferable.
They must keep in mind though that EU will be a big obstacle. It will be difficult to entirely dismantle EU and place instead Western Europe in a Coalition with two billion people (according to today's population). Nevertheless EU will not be an insurmountable obstacle. There will be ways to overcome it. But it will be a major difficulty that should be counted in the disadvantages of having Coalitions of Countries. Coalitions of Countries is another alternative decision makers have. First decision is if they want Coalitions of Groups or Coalitions of Countries.
If they choose Coalitions of Countries, they must proceed ASAP with one of the many ways AntiNWO has suggested, Agreement, Free Formation, Incompelte Coalitions, DMPR, SLR. If they want Coalitions of Groups, they must choose ASAP one of AntiNWO's two Groupings, form the Groups with at least a core of countries and organize Groups internally. Obviously NWO's supporters can't participate in a plan that they oppose. In order to participate, they need to renounce NWO's ridiculous plan and support AntiNWO's magnificent plan.
We should remind that having no Groups and no Coalitions is also an alternative accepted by AntiNWO. In another article, we will simplify AntiNWO's plan. First, we must present the different parts of the plan. We will also change names. Plan A (or 1) is Coalitions of Groups. There are two main Groupings but other are also possible under certain circumstances. Plan B (or 2) was just explained, Coalitions of Countries without any Groups. Plan C (or 3) remains the same, no Groups and no Coalitions.