Less probable arrangements 2
Less probable arrangements 2
North America's Coalition C is not presented. It will have all American continent and a large part of Subsaharan Africa. In option 2 (Table B, Appendix 49B), Western Europe will be in C and the part of Subsaharan Africa will be smaller. The arrangement has weak but also strong points. In terms of SPATIAL PROXIMITY, it is very GOOD. All four Coalitions are continuous areas. This is a very important advantage. SPATIAL PROXIMITY is not required but it makes COOPERATION a lot EASIER.
Europe and Asia are one continent, Eurasia. Africa was connected to Asia before the Suez Canal was made. The American continent is separated by two oceans from the rest of the world. So Coalition C can't be a continuous area. The closest area to the American continent is western Africa and next is Western Europe. It is roughly 1.800 miles (2.897 km) between eastern Brazil and Senegal or Sierra Leone. The distance from Maine to Ireland is 2.500 miles (4.023 km).
In option 1, Coalition C has only Subsaharan Africa, the area that is closest. In option 2, it includes also Western Europe. So in option 2, America will have the two areas that are closest. A large percentage of people in North America (USA - Canada) originate from Western Europe. In USA, approximately 20% is from Latin America and 14,5% is from western Subsaharan Africa (African Americans).
In option 1, Western Europe is in Coalition D, with Eastern Europe. WESTERN EUROPE can NOT be with EASTERN, if RUSSIA is NOT INCLUDED. But in this arrangement, Russia is included and it will be acceptable. However there is considerable DISTRUST towards WESTERN EUROPE, in many areas of Coalition D and all over the world generally. People are righfully afraid that Western Europeans will do the same horrible things they have done in Eastern Europe.
It is expected that Western Europeans will try to control the Coalition they are in and impose their will. They will place puppet governments that will take orders from them, like they have done in Eastern Europe. They won't be able to do such things in North America. However, AntiNWO does not oppose Western Europe being in the same Coalition with Eastern, as long as Russia is also included.
With both options, the arrangement is good. Currently, the one proposed (Appendix 48) seems to have better chances. But LESS PROBABLE ARRANGEMENTS could GAIN SUPPORT in the FUTURE and have better chances than the one currently proposed. We should note that there could be further changes. For instance, China could be with ASEAN and India with the countries of Table B in Appendix 49.
On the left side of Table A - Appendix 49, a Coalition is presented with China, Russia, Iran and some other countries. It was explained that if they choose this Coalition, they will be giving away the rest of the world to North America and Western Europe. Most likely they will not do it. For the sake of argument, let's assume that they decide to go ahead with this Coalition.
There are a few possibilities. One is to have India with ASEAN, as presented on the right side of Table A - Appendix 49. There will be two more Coalitions. EASTERN EUROPE can NOT be with WESTERN, if RUSSIA is NOT INCLUDED. For a thousand years, Western Europe has been trying to conquer or control Eastern. Currently, Western Europe controls Eastern and things will only get worse.
If RUSSIA is included, it will be more BALANCED. Western Europe will not be able to have full control of Eastern. Since Russia will be in a Coalition with China and Iran, Eastern Europe can't be in the same with Western and it will have to be with North America. Western Europe does not participate in decision making. So North America and Eastern Europe will choose the areas they want and Western Europe will get the leftovers.
There is another possibility though. Western Europe could be placed with India. In that case, North America and Eastern Europe will be in different Coalitions. There can be an arrangement that is close to the one proposed in Appendix 48. This is presented in Appendix 50. The Coalition with China, Russia, Iran etc is repeated in Table A. The fifteen countries have already a high percentage, 26,1%.
The rest will not allow them to have any more countries. In Table B (Appendix 50) are the countries of Coalition D, without Russia. Those that were in Coalition B, in previous arrangements are included. There was an exchange between Coalition B and D. B got from D Russia, Belarus and ACA (Azerbaijan - Central Asia). D got Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Oman, Yemen. The percentage of D is 24,9%.
This arrangement has pros and cons. All Arab countries are in the same Coalition. It is questionable if Eastern Europe can be the pole (leader) without Russia. Also Russia would be the bridge between Eastern Europe and Eastern Pacific. With Russia, the Coalition would be one continuous area that would spread in a semi-circular way from South Africa to Oceania. Without Russia, there are two continuous areas.
On the other hand, many countries in D had issues with Russia. If Russia is placed in another Coalition, it will make things easier. Unavoidably, Turkey will have an important role, something Eastern Europe and especially Balkans do not want. In order to accept the arrangement, EASTERN EUROPEANS REQUIRE that TURKEY will NOT be INVOLVED in EASTERN EUROPE and will be in a different division. If TURKEY wants to have a LEADING ROLE, there are PLENTY of MUSLIM countries.
Also there is an issue with Israel. Iran is not in the Coalition but Turkey and Iran's allies (Yemen, Lebanon) are. A solution may be to be include Israel in Eastern Europe's division. In D, there can be five divisions a) Eastern Europe b) Middle East c) North Africa d) Subsahara e) Eastern Pacific. Each could have further subdivisions. Also Israel could be in North America's Coalition C.
That could be a good COMPROMISING ARRANGEMENT between China - Russia and North America - Western Europe. The countries in D will not be with North America, Western Europe or China. Russia could have been in that Coalition as well but it seems to be very attached to China and Iran. If Russia decides to be in D, instead of B, an exchange between B and D can happen.
In Appendix 50B, Coalitions A and C are shown. Their percentages are 25,1% and 24,0% respectively. There can be exchanges or changes. A could get Mercosur in exchange for Bangladesh, Nepal etc. In that case a triangular exchange would be necessary. D would get Scandinavia - Finland and Austria (SFA) from A and give Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, Papua) to C. SFA may be more willing to participate in D, if Russia is not in it.