Sporting a fresh haircut, Lavrov met the press, first providing his remarks, which were much shorter than usual, then answering their questions, so the overall length is about the same: Dear Colleagues, I am glad to welcome you, We are concluding our work at the G20 Foreign Ministers' Meeting.
"Therefore, when we decide on the expansion of the UN Security Council in practical terms, we will support only representatives of Asia, Africa and Latin America. "
Exactly as I recommended in an earlier comment. However, the expansion should be accompanied by a reduction in European members, specifically the UK and France. Germany could be included as it is (or was) one of the more industrialized and certainly historically the most aggressive and therefore significantly more important than the two "nuclear powers." Why the hell Malta, Slovenia and Guyana are on the council is beyond me; obviously a fig leaf for "regional representation." Why not India, Indonesia and Malaysia and South Africa and Iran - countries with huge populations?
More importantly, the veto should be removed to be replaced by a high percentage majority vote, somewhere in the range of 75% or even 80%, as I recommended before. Combined with representation of all the regions and the bulk of the world's population, that would limit "adventurism" of any country or region.
If the US under the new organization wants to leave, let it. The rest of the world will get on with business and any unilateral US behavior - which it does anyway regardless of the UNSC - will be dealt with by the rest of the world - including the two most powerful militaries of Russia and China - with UNSC Resolutions that can not be "vetoed" by the US.
In many ways, the Outlaw US Empire is becoming a bit player when it comes to actual global governance--it mostly gets in the way and doesn't help in any way whatsoever. The rotational membership on the UNSC must happen in a manner that keeps global balance population-wise, which means the West will always be in the minority. Ideally, no state should have greater importance than any other. US elites since its outset are wedded to unilateralism and have never submitted to an equal multipolar system of relations, which is why the League of Nations was rejected by the Senate, and Wilson couldn't help it get ratified due to his stroke which made Mrs. Wilson the first de facto female US President.
That's why I promote China's Global Security Initiative as it allows a reshuffling of the UN when read closely. There're many good reasons I push Xi Jinping's suggestions.
Lots of really good quotes that point out the US Govt's increasing tendancy to issue 'imperial diktats', which suggests to me an increasing frenzy connected to a realisation of their geopolitical impotence.
I liked Blinkin's incomplete statement when he, "... said that he did not see any conditions for the start of negotiations [with Russia WRT Ukraine]." It's incomplete because there was no mention of; 5 billion investment that's now gone down the pan, all Us' weapons shown to be mediocre at best, NATO training demonstated to be the equivalent of the weapons, Wastern weapon production practically non-existent and finally Wastern leadership wholly made up of incompetent toilet-paper, which they will now need in copious quantities having had their asses handed to them.
Yes, Western geoeconomic impotence is on the rise, and that undermines one of the key geopolitical pillars. Reformulation of the international trade infrastructure to avoid Western choke points will begin to do real damage later this year. Currently, the inability of the Outlaw US Empire to finance its Empire of Bases via host nation purchases of US debt is escalating. The 100,000 troops it now has stationed in Europe suck up large amounts of dollars and euros that were never budgeted for that're rapidly driving up deficits.
"Therefore, when we decide on the expansion of the UN Security Council in practical terms, we will support only representatives of Asia, Africa and Latin America. "
Exactly as I recommended in an earlier comment. However, the expansion should be accompanied by a reduction in European members, specifically the UK and France. Germany could be included as it is (or was) one of the more industrialized and certainly historically the most aggressive and therefore significantly more important than the two "nuclear powers." Why the hell Malta, Slovenia and Guyana are on the council is beyond me; obviously a fig leaf for "regional representation." Why not India, Indonesia and Malaysia and South Africa and Iran - countries with huge populations?
More importantly, the veto should be removed to be replaced by a high percentage majority vote, somewhere in the range of 75% or even 80%, as I recommended before. Combined with representation of all the regions and the bulk of the world's population, that would limit "adventurism" of any country or region.
If the US under the new organization wants to leave, let it. The rest of the world will get on with business and any unilateral US behavior - which it does anyway regardless of the UNSC - will be dealt with by the rest of the world - including the two most powerful militaries of Russia and China - with UNSC Resolutions that can not be "vetoed" by the US.
In many ways, the Outlaw US Empire is becoming a bit player when it comes to actual global governance--it mostly gets in the way and doesn't help in any way whatsoever. The rotational membership on the UNSC must happen in a manner that keeps global balance population-wise, which means the West will always be in the minority. Ideally, no state should have greater importance than any other. US elites since its outset are wedded to unilateralism and have never submitted to an equal multipolar system of relations, which is why the League of Nations was rejected by the Senate, and Wilson couldn't help it get ratified due to his stroke which made Mrs. Wilson the first de facto female US President.
In a new organisation who would want to invite the US or its satellites?
That's why I promote China's Global Security Initiative as it allows a reshuffling of the UN when read closely. There're many good reasons I push Xi Jinping's suggestions.
Lots of really good quotes that point out the US Govt's increasing tendancy to issue 'imperial diktats', which suggests to me an increasing frenzy connected to a realisation of their geopolitical impotence.
I liked Blinkin's incomplete statement when he, "... said that he did not see any conditions for the start of negotiations [with Russia WRT Ukraine]." It's incomplete because there was no mention of; 5 billion investment that's now gone down the pan, all Us' weapons shown to be mediocre at best, NATO training demonstated to be the equivalent of the weapons, Wastern weapon production practically non-existent and finally Wastern leadership wholly made up of incompetent toilet-paper, which they will now need in copious quantities having had their asses handed to them.
Yes, Western geoeconomic impotence is on the rise, and that undermines one of the key geopolitical pillars. Reformulation of the international trade infrastructure to avoid Western choke points will begin to do real damage later this year. Currently, the inability of the Outlaw US Empire to finance its Empire of Bases via host nation purchases of US debt is escalating. The 100,000 troops it now has stationed in Europe suck up large amounts of dollars and euros that were never budgeted for that're rapidly driving up deficits.
He keeps lining up the ROW, nice work.