Southern Region exit

In previous articles, we explained that Western Subgroup of Eastern European Group could have western orientation. This can be done in two ways a) all Subgroup has orientation towards Western Europe and North America b) Northern Region (A1) has orientation towards Western Europe and Southern Region (A2) is oriented towards North America.

The two Subgroups of Eastern European Group are shown in Table B of Appendix 24. Category A1 and Category A2 are the countries of Western Subgroup A. These are divided into two categories, in A1 are those that are already in EU and in A2 are non EU members. Northern Region (A1) will have Poland, Czechia, Baltic countries, Ukraine. In Southern Region (A2), Balkan countries, Hungary, Slovakia, Israel will participate.

Northern Region was named A1 and Southern A2. These should be not be confused with Category A1 and Category A2 of Table B in Appendix 24. In Category B of Table B Appendix 24 are the countries of Eastern Subgroup B. Region B1 has Christian "European" countries; Russia, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia. Region B2 has Muslim Asian countries; Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan.

Orientation refers to the external relations. These are supplementary to the internal relations inside the Group. Orientation does not mean exclusive but closer relations. Suppose that Northern Region A1 has orientation towards Western Europe. The countries will have external relations with other areas and countries but these will not be as close as with Western Europe.

Are the two options mentioned above the only ones? No, they are not. These options are a good compromise, a middle of the way approach. All sides are somewhat satisfied. Western Europe can retain relations with the countries of Western Subgroup. All these countries (except Israel) are either already members in EU or designated to be according to the disastrous NWO's plan.

Relations will have to be adjusted because these countries will not be in the same Group with Western European countries. They will not be internal relations anymore, inside the same Group but external. Nevertheless, RELATIONS could still be CLOSE but in a DIFFERENT WAY. In order for that to happen, WESTERN EUROPEAN GROUP will have to EARN it, as it will be explained.

Russia and USA should be satisfied because with this arrangement, they can IMPROVE RELATIONS with the countries of Western Subgroup in Eastern European Group. Russia will be in the same Group with them but in a different Subgroup, Eastern B. USA will also improve relations because unlike in EU, Western Subgroup will be relatively autonomous and manage external relations independently.

China and other Asian countries like Iran, Turkiye etc can have closer relations with Eastern Subgroup. Since Eastern Subgroup will have internal relations with Western, they can also indirectly have relations with Western Subgroup. This is a good arrangement where all sides are somewhat satisfied. But there are many more options regarding the orientation of Western (or Eastern) Subgroup.

It could be oriented towards Central and South America, Arab countries, Southwestern Asia (Turkiye, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan), Northeastern Asia, Southeastern Asia - Oceania, Northern Subsaharan Africa, Southern Subsaharan Africa, India. But these do not have so much interest in the western part of Eastern European Group. The "main players", those that have more interest are Western Europe, North America (mainly USA), Russia, China.

First of all, there must be two relatively independent Subgroups, so that they can have different orientation in their external relations. Also, there must be two different Regions in each Subgroup, so that they can have different orientation. The second is a relatively easy issue that will be decided internally in each Subgroup. If countries want it this way, it can easily happen.

The first is not a very easy issue. In order to be certain that two relatively autonomous Subgroups will exist, the approach of two temporary independent Groups has to be followed. In the alternative approach, CIS enlargement, it becomes much more difficult but not impossible. In order for the first approach to be followed, enough of the countries that are designated to be in Western Subgroup should form a temporary independent Group.

The stance of "main players" will affect the orientation of Western Subgroup. Suppose that North America (mainly USA) strongly supports the formation of a temporary independent Group (from the countries that are designated to be in Western Subgroup) while Western Europe strongly opposes it. In that case, it is possible that WESTERN SUBGROUP will have ORIENTATION towards NORTH AMERICA ONLY and NOT so CLOSE RELATIONS with WESTERN EUROPE.

Obviously, Western Europe will not be satisfied with that. But this will be the consequence of opposing the formation of a temporary independent Group. If in WESTERN EUROPE they want to RETAIN RELATIONS with Western Subgroup of Eastern European Group, they will have to EARN it. It is NOT GIVEN that this will happen ANYWAY but only if their stance is supportive of the formation of a temporary independent Group.

Suppose that their stance is very supportive and Regions' orientation in external relations is agreed. This means that Northern Region A1 will have orientation towards Western Europe and Southern Region A2 towards North America. In this case, WESTERN EUROPE may get an EXTRA BONUS. ANTI-RUSSIAN NORTHERN REGION A1 could REMAIN together with Western European countries in EU for a little LONGER, since it will have orientation towards Western Europe.

On the other hand, Region A2 should exit EU the soonest possible and form a temporary independent Group. In this Group, countries that are not EU members can be added gradually. There are eight EU countries in Southern Region A2. Also non-EU members are eight countries. Seven of them will be in Region A2. Only Ukraine will be in Region A1. So a temporary independent Group of 8 + 7 = 15 fifteen countries can be formed.

Eventually, the five countries of Region A1 will also join. Ukraine could participate in the temporary Group but probably it would be better if it waits for Region A1 to join. In the meanwhile, while waiting, Ukraine can prepare to be in Northern Region A1 and gradually establish relations with the other countries, Poland, Czechia, Baltic. In this way, the temporary autonomous Group will have only Southern Region A2 countries without any country from Northern Region A1.

In any case, Ukraine can't be in any Group, Subgroup or Region before the war in over. Likewise, Israel could join the temporary independent Group (Region A2) after the war is over. It seems that the war could end there sooner than in Ukraine. The temporary independent Group could have orientation in external relations towards North America, since only Region A2 countries will participate.

Also it will gradually establish relations with Subgoup B, since eventually they will be in the same Group. There will be a two step exit from EU. At the first step, countries of Southern Region A2 will exit. At the second step, countries of Northern Region A1 will exit. This also makes matters easier because currently Northern Region A1 is so much anti-Russian that can't ever prepare to have relations with Eastern Subgroup B in which Russia is.

If Western Europe's stance is supportive, not only they can retain relations with Western Subgroup of Eastern European Group but they will also get as an extra bonus to keep Region A1 longer in EU with them. It is to their benefit to support the formation of a temporary independent Group composed of countries in Southern Region A2. The eight countries of the Region should exit EU ASAP (as soon as possible).