Redefining the poles 2
Redefining the poles 2
Russia must make an important decision soon. Will it be with Eastern Europe or with China? It can't be with Eastern Europe and China because North America and Western Europe will not accept it. Western Europe's opinion does not count much because they do not participate in decision making. After Russia makes the decision, things will become a lot easier.
According to some sources, Russia has already given an ANSWER regarding its DECISION. RUSSIA is an Eastern European, Slavic, Orthodox country. It has EVERY RIGHT to be together with the rest of Eastern European, Slavic, Orthodox countries. On the contrary to Russia, WESTERN EUROPE has NO RIGHT to be TOGETHER with EASTERN EUROPEAN countries.
Although Russia has every right to be in the same Coalition with Eastern Europe, participating in Coalition B with China, as presented in Table A of Appendix 50 is not something Russia it rejects. It may seriously consider being with China in the Coalition of Table A - Appendix 50 only if one condition is met. Otherwise, Russia will seek to be with the rest of Eastern Europe, as it has every right to do.
Western Europe could be in the same Coalition with Eastern, only if Russia is included. For a thousand years, Western Europe has been trying to conquer or control Eastern. Currently Western Europe controls Eastern to a large extent. Things will only get worse. If Russia is included, it will be more balanced and Western Europe will not be able to have full control of Eastern Europe.
However, relations between Western Europe and Russia are not good. Being together in the same Coalition would be problematic. Furthermore, China and North America may not like that. On the other hand, Western Europe does not want Eastern to be with Russia. The situation is very complicated. In order to have all sides somewhat satisfied, Eastern Europe can't be with Western or Russia. Likewise, it can't be with North America or China.
RUSSIA is willing to seriously CONSIDER being with CHINA, IRAN and other countries (Table A - Appendix 50), ONLY if EASERN EUROPE is NOT with WESTERN or NORTH AMERICA. We must point out that serious consideration will not certainly lead to the decision but there are good chances. EASTERN EUROPE will be a NEUTRAL ZONE between RUSSIA (plus allies) and WESTERN EUROPE. It can have GOOD RELATIONS with BOTH SIDES.
Those that do not want Eastern Europe to be with Russia, should support Eastern Europe being separately from Western or North America. Because the ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE is to be with RUSSIA. This is a compromising solution that should make all sides somewhat satisfied. Westen Europe was obsessed with Eastern because according to NWO's stupid plan Eastern would be with Western in European Union.
So if Eastern Europe was separated from Western, what would be left of EU would be smaller than the planned. With AntiNWO's magnificent plan, Western Europe's Coalition will have roughly 25% of the world's population, no matter what countries/areas are included. So Western Europe will not miss anything. Eastern Europe will be replaced with other areas. Actually, EU would have only around 7,5% of the world's population, while each Coalition will have 25%.
Without Russia, Eastern Europe will not be strong enough to be a pole. Other areas should be added to strengthen the pole. Scandinavia, Finland, Austria (SFA) were suggested as the first choice since they are next to Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe needs other areas to become stronger in order to be a pole but does not necessarily needs SFA. There are other alternatives.
However, the best decision for SFA is to join Eastern Europe as the pole of Coalition D. If they do that, they will be with the winners and decision makers. If they are with Western Europe, they will be with the losers and will not participate in decision making. Additionally and most importantly, even if INITIALLY they do NOT JOIN Eastern Europe as the pole of Coalition D, most likely, they will END UP with Eastern Europe in Coalition D.
Western Europe has lost the "war". NWO's plan is a Western European plan. For a thousand years, they have been trying to attain a highly defective plan from the Dark Ages and they have been failing. Their plan is in the garbage can. They were the main supporters of NWO's plan and the main opponents of AntiNWO's plan. They can't participate directly in the decision making of a plan that they strongly opposed.
It would be like if the Nazis participated in Yalta Agreement. So the decision makers will decide about Western Europe's placement. As matters stand currently, most likely Western Europe will be placed with India. This is totally justifiable due to the trade deal they made recently with India. Western Europeans take the decisions in EU, especially the largest countries, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, (and UK when it was a member).
With India, there will be the five countries that are next to it (Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives). This is only reasonable. The Coalition is shown in Table A of Appendix 52B. With the British Isles, the Coalition has already 25,5%. This is 0,5% more than the target which is 25%. With Scandinavia - Finland Austra (SFA), it will become 26% and the decision makers will not allow that. Why would they allow Coalition B to have 26,1% ?
Because China and Russia are among the winners and participate in decision making. They other decision makers may allow that but no more countries can be added. It is questionable if Armenia and Georgia can be included. We must take into consideration that Western Europeans are the losers. They are getting a very good deal for losers. They are getting one of their choices (India) and 25,5%. They could have gotten only 24% or less.
Since most likely decision makers will not allow Western Europeans to increase the percentage of their Coalition from 25,5% to 26%, SFA will end up eventually in Coalition D. In that case, they will be the laggards, the last ones to join. Isn't it much better for them to be the leaders of the leaders instead of the laggards? This is something anyone can understand, no special knowledge or skills required.
This would actually be better for Germany and Western Europe. They can't have Eastern Europe in their Coalition. But they can have their "own" in Coalition D and these countries can have an important role in the pole, which will lead the rest of the Coalition. This is more important than having SFA in Coalition A. Plus, decision makers will not allow them that, even if they wanted.
It will be a beneficial situation for Western and Eastern Europe but SFA will benefit much more. Nevertheless, even if SFA do not join, Eastern Europe will be a pole with the addition of other areas. Coalitions A and B will be complete. Together they will have 51,6%. Coalitions C and D will have 48,4% together and the average would be 24,2%. The two poles, North America and a strenghened Eastern Europe with other areas will choose the countries/areas that they want for their Coalition.