New Yalta elaboration

We should elaborate a little more on New Yalta Agreement. In the suggested process, we use the list with the largest economies in purchasing power parity. Using nominal values is incorrect because they are affected by price levels. Real G4 (China, USA, India, Russia) should manage the process. These four are also the top military powers, in a different order, according to Global Fire Power.

The top ten countries in 2024 and their indexes are; USA 0,0744, Russia 0,0788, China 0,0788, India 0,1184, South Korea 0,1656, UK 0,1785, France 0,1878, Japan 0,1839, Turkiye 0,1902, Italy 0,2164. The smaller the index, the more powerful militarily a country is. In the next ten positions are; Brazil, Pakistan, Indonesia, Germany, Israel, Iran, Spain, Australia, Egypt, Ukraine. Ukraine is that high because of the military aid it has received. It was much lower three years ago.

The size of the economy shows the economic strength. This is something different than how much rich a country is which is shown with GDP ppp per capita. In therms of income (GDP ppp per capita), China is very near the world's average and India below that. Russia is above it and USA even more. The size of the economy is significantly affected by the population and so is military strength. Countries with economic and military strength have large populations.

World's Big Four (China, USA, India, Russia) are in the top positions of economy's size and military strength because they have large populations. The same reasoning applies though to the "black sheep" of the world, the countries that are on the wrong side. Germany, France, UK, Italy are the Big Four in Western Europe with the largest economies (Appendix 17) because they have the largest populations. They are not the richest countries.

The forty countries with the largest populations are; India, China, USA, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, Japan, Philippines, Ethiopia, Congo, Egypt, Vietnam, Iran, Turkiye, Germany, France, UK, Thailand, South Africa, Tanzania, Italy, Colombia, Kenya, Myanmar, South Korea, Sudan, Spain, Algeria, Argentina, Uganda, Iraq, Afghanistan, Canada, Uzbekistan, Poland, Morocco.

The "black sheep" of the world are lower In the population list than in the GDP list. Their rankings are; Germany 6 - 19, France 9 - 20, UK 10 - 21, Italy 11 - 25, Turkiye 12 - 18, Spain 15 - 31, Canada 16 - 37, Poland 20 - 39. The first is their ranking in GDP list and the second in population list. So working with the GDP list is to their advantage because it gives them a better standing.

If they were not a world abnormality, they could be involved in the Agreement as well. It it their fault that they are a big anomaly in the world, misaligned with the rest. Actually, some of them could get on the right side and be involved in the Agreement. In France, Canada, Poland there can be a change of government. Italy and Turkiye could change their position because they are not fully aligned with NWO.

Since there are eight billion people in the world, it helps to have four countries, Big Four, manage the New Yalta Agreement. That is why in Appendix 17, the forty largest economies in the world are in groups of four. Could eight countries manage the New Yalta Agreement, instead of four? There could be eight, sixteen, thirty two and so on.

The more they are, the more complex it becomes and harder to get result. It is much better, if Big Four manage the Agreement and involve more countries, following the order of the largest economies. This could be done in steps or levels. At the first* level, G4 could involve the next four largest economies. Each level or step could involve four more countries. The Agreement process could progress in steps.

Of course, all the "black sheep", countries that are in the wrong direction, will be excluded. In the first step, the four following Big Four, Germany is definitely in the wrong direction. In the second step, all four are a world abnormality, France, UK, Italy, Turkiye. If one of them becomes normal, it could replace Germany and be involved in the first step. France and UK can't become normal with their current governments but Italy or Turkiye could.

In NWO's totally insane plan there are four pseudo-continental Unions with huge differences in population. European Union has 7,9% of world population, American Union 13,2%, African Union 16,1 % and Asian Union 62,7%. In AntiNWO's Plan there are four Coalitions of Groups to resemble the four Unions. They have roughly equal population and the relations inside them are loose. In Plan A, Coalitions are optional while in Plan B they are required.

Even if there are no Coalitions, the world's population could be divided into four parts with roughly two billion people each. These can be spatially continuous or non continuous. In the New Yalta Agreement, each one of the Big Four, could deal with two billion people, including the population of their countries. Countries that have total population of two billion people could be assigned to China, USA, India, Russia.

East Asia has roughly half the world's population, four billion. China is northern of India. So China could deal with two billion people in northeastern Asia and India with two billion people in southeastern Asia. This is a reasonable approach but not necessary to happen. Nevertheless, some kind of division into four parts will be very helpful for Big Four that will manage New Yalta Agreement process.

In Yalta Agreement, Europe and the world were divided in two sides, communist and non communist. Yalta Agreement was followed by Cold War because each side was trying to get as many countries as possible. There isn't communism any more. So the world should not be divided in two opposing sides. The purpose should be cooperation, mainly economic. Later on, security issues can be addressed.

New Yalta Agreement should determine which (economic) relations will be closer. Economic cooperation can be extended to other fields like in science, technology etc. Economic cooperation will also cause closer political relations. Some countries will have closer relations and others not so close. But not having close relations does not mean that they will be hostile. New Yalta Agreement should minimize problems, conflicts and hostilities.

Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin participated in three Conferences. Yalta Conference was second, towards the end of the war. It ended three months later. First one was Teheran Conference in November 1943. The last one was Postdam Conference from July 17th to August 2nd 1945. Postdam is in Bradenburg, Germany which at that time was in Soviet zone. Yalta Conference was held between 4th and 11th of February 1945 in Crimea to discuss the postwar situation.

The war had not ended yet. Nazis surrender in Berlin on May 2nd 1945 and by May 7th they had surrender everywhere. At 02:41 am on the 7th of May 1945, Nazi Chief of Staff signed an unconditional surrender document, in Reims France. Allies first finished with Nazis and Axis and then started their competition that escalated into Cold War. Likewise, currently it is absolutely necessary to finish first with Nazi continuators.

NWO are Nazis continuators. They have the same goals, control of Europe and the world, establish a European and Global dictatorship. After NWO is finished, ideally there will be only cooperation. Even if there is some competition, it should happen after NWO and EU are finished. EU is NWO, they are the same. It is extremely crucial that EU ceases to exist. Europe and EU should be divided in at least two parts.

Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were involved in Yalta Agreement. The opinions for them differ. In Western Europe and USA - Canada, generally they do not have a positive opinion about Stalin but in the countries of former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe some people believe that he was a great leader. Likewise, they may not have positive opinions about Roosevelt and Churchil in ex-communist countries.

Regardless of the opinions about the people involved, Yalta Agreement was a major historic event. Current leaders of China, USA, India, Russia have the chance to lead an Agreement that could be a major historic event and have great impact on international affairs. More countries could also have an important role but not the "black sheep", the world's big abnormality.

*Second if we consider Big Four involvement as first.