Four possible Coalitions 2
Four possible Coalitions 2
Divisions and subdivisions in Coalitions are highly recommended. In Coalitions C and D that have many countries, these are absolutely necessary. Divisions and subdivisions is a matter of internal organization in Coalitions that does not concern the other Coalitions. Indicatively, we will show an example for Coalition D in Table A of Appendix 40B.
Subgroups and Regions were optional further divisions of Groups. Likewise, in Coalitions there can be Subcoalitions, Regions and Subregions. Since Coalitions are much larger than Groups, Subcoalitions and Coalitions' Regions will be much larger than Subgroups and Groups' Regions. In the example of Table A in Appendix 40B, Coalition D has three Regions with two Subregions each.
Ukraine is in a different Region from Russia. Ukraine, Belarus and Russia have always been the closest allies. However, Western European NWO caused the war in Ukraine because according to NWO's ridiculous plan Ukraine would be in European Union and Russia in Asian. Due to Western European NWO interference, relations between Ukraine and Russia have deteriorated. So it is preferable if they are placed in different Regions.
There is also a war going on in Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen. The war is meaningless. The two opposing sides should be in different Coalitions. After that is done, they should mind their own business and deal primarily with the countries in their Coalition. Coalitions of Countries has a lot more flexibility than Coalitions of Groups. With Coalitions of Countries, the different sides can be in different Coalitions.
One side is Iran, Lebanon, Yemen. The other side is Israel, assisted by USA. Most countries of the Arabian Peninsula are slightly on Israel - USA side. They do not participate in the war but they allow USA to use its military bases in their land. As retaliation, Iran has been bombarding them. Turkiye has also allowed the use of military bases in its land against Iran.
Palestinians are Arabs and archeniemies of Israelis. Iran and Turkiye are not Arab countries. Unlike Arabs, Iran and Turkiye have been very supportive of Palestinians. In AntiNWO's Grouping A, Turkiye and Iran were placed in the same Group. Iran's stance is clearer than Turkiye's. Iran is anti-West and close to China. Afghanistan is also Anti-West. Although it is not very clear on the map, Afghanistan shares a short 92-kilometer (57-mile) border with China.
Turkiye has had a very confusing stance that borders insanity. On one hand they want to have an important role in the Muslim countries. On the other hand, they are in NATO and have been desparately trying for forty years to be together with Western Europe. It is like being in a socialist political party and wanting to have an important role in the center-right.
Turkiye can make its dream come true by being placed in a Coalition with Western European countries. Iran, Lebanon, Yemen can be in a Coalition with China. Iraq can also participate. As it can be seen on the map, Syria is in between Iraq and Lebanon. Before Yemen, next to Iran is Oman. Iran and Oman have good relations. Can Syria and Oman be in Coalition B with Iran and China?
This is shown in Table B of Appendix 40B. On the left side is Coalition B, as it has been presented so far. It has 25,9% of the world's population. If Syria and Oman are added, Coalition B will have 26,5% of the world's population. In the previous article, it was mentioned that instead of Nigeria, Pakistan can be included in Coalition B. This is shown on the right side of Table B.
If Pakistan replaces Nigeria, the Coalition's percentage of total population becomes 26,2%. If Syria and Oman are added, the percentage increases to 26,5%. In previous articles, it was suggested that ideally the range for Coalitions of Countries would be ± 0,5% and preferably it should not be above 1%. Nevertheless, ±1,5% could also be acceptable. Still, this is not carved in stone.
If decision makers want to be lenient, they can increase further the acceptable range to ±2% or higher. So if the rest of the decision makers, Coalitions C and D, are willing to accept ±1,5% range, Pakistan can replace Nigeria and Syria - Oman can also be included. Also, instead of Nigeria, DR Congo and S. Africa, other countries can participate. If their population is smaller, the percentage of Coalition B will decrease.
The three Subsaharan countries have a population of almost 390 million. The population of the ten Western European countries in Coalition A is 310 million. UK, Ireland, Scandinavia, Finland, Austria are not included. If China wants, it can have these ten Western European countries instead of the three Subsaharan. Western Europe and the countries of Coalition A will not participate in decision making.
Decision makers (Coalitions B, C, D) can place Western European countries anywhere they want. But who would like to have to deal with psychopaths? Western Europe is governed by NWO maniacs and these people are psychopaths. For some strange reason, Mercosur, India and Turkiye do not mind dealing with psychopaths. Since countries that voluntarily want to deal with psychopaths have been found, we should leave Coalition A as it is.
After Western Europe, Turkiye has been opposing AntiNWO's magnificent plan. Mercosur and India sided with Western Europe with the two trade deals they made. These are the losers of the "war". They have been supporting NWO's ridiculous plan or sided with those that have been supporting it. Even if they are the losers, they have the most privileged Coalition and get excactly what they wanted.
The countries of Coalition A should not overlook the fact that they are the losers. This is a great deal for the losers. Suppose that Soviet Union, USA and Britain gave to the Nazis excactly what they wanted in Yalta Agreement. That would have been really something! This is what is happening with Coalition A. It is a great deal offered to the countries of Coalition A, given that they are the losers.
The arrangement presented in Appendix 40 is very reasonable. Some changes can be made as the ones suggested in this article. Although it is a very reasonable scenario, it is only one alternative. It is possible that it will be like that but it is not certain. We can't know what the decision makers will decide, if the choose to have Coalitions of Countries. There are many more ways to arrange the world's countries in four Coalitions.