Congratulations to Argentina, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Ethiopia ! Isn't that historic ? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml to c/worldnews@lemmygrad.ml

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

B.t.w., on a more useless note, i've been playing with some possible acronyms for the past hour, without success, my favorite for now is « I(ran) B(razil)E(thiopia)A(rgentina)R(ussia) E(gypt)C(hina)E(mirates)S(audi arabia)I(ndia)S(outh africa) ».
An ecesis being the successful establishment of a plant/animal in a habitat that was barren previously.

Here's some failed attempts :

scareee ibis
see, ibis care
erase ibices
i see bear, sic!
icee braises
ricee biases
baeee! Crisis!
raise, EECbis
And i'll spare you even worse ones

Yeah, i'm not sure that they'll be called by their acronym anymore, but who cares right ? They've made an alliance with the Middle-East, now include the two largest countries in South America, and even set a second foot in Africa with the ultra-famous Ethiopia(, one of the first christian countries, a communist history, one of the few never colonized, etc.) ! Well worth more than a single toast.
The world doesn't have to be divided, it's the west who refuses to live with such differences as socialism, islamism, or whatever survived the colonization, if this alliance enables diversity( in unity) then that's a good thing.

all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 35 points 10 months ago

The oil producers joining BRICS will definitely have a big impact in geopolitics, without exageration, this is the end of the petrodolar.

[-] MinekPo1@lemmygrad.ml 30 points 10 months ago

Honestly I hope the BRICS bank does come to fruition. China has already done a lot for the developing world and an alternative for the IMF which doesn't require implementing neoliberal policies would benefit many counties.

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 10 months ago

Argentina and Iran were pretty much a done deal, and Saudi Arabia was a maybe but i didn't expect Egypt so soon, and Ethiopia was the most positive surprise of all. This has the potential to do a ton of economic good for Ethiopia and i am really happy for them, they deserve a win after the hard times they've been having recently fighting against their US backed rebels.

[-] kig_v2@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 10 months ago

Saudi Arabia has switched so damn fast my neck cricked

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They want to be like Turkey and play both sides for their own advantage. In a period of prolonged great power confrontation hedging your bets like that can be very profitable. But it's hard to pull off, it's a delicate balancing act that carries with it inherent risks and requires that you have something that is vitally important to both sides. Turkey has its strategic location, the Saudis have their oil, so both sides of the new cold war have to put up with their opportunism. But if you're unimportant and weak you will not be allowed to sit on the fence, you will be forced into one of the two camps which is what happened first to Ukraine which was not allowed to be the middle man between Russia and Europe, and now on a larger scale to all of Europe which has been forced by its imperial masters in Washington to break their lucrative economic relations with Russia, and in the future may again be forced to do the same with China. Obviously the Saudis do not want to be put in such a position of humiliating subservience that forces them to self-harm and go against their own interests.

[-] kig_v2@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 10 months ago

This makes a lot of sense, thank you for analysis

[-] Aru@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 10 months ago

India and china Saudia and Iran Brazil and Argentina Ethiopia and Egypt Damn

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 32 points 10 months ago

The willingness to put aside differences…

It just goes to show…

How much the whole world fucking hates the US.

[-] kig_v2@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Iranian: never thought I'd die side by side with a saudi...🤔

Saudi: how about side by side with an anti imperialist? 😊

[-] kig_v2@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 10 months ago

(I know theyve tried to stress BRICS is not about anti imperialism or combatting US hegemony, but what you say versus what you're doing in practice well...)

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 10 months ago

The question of openly opposing G7 was iirc at least stated on this summit. And many statements points straight on opposing USA without naming it.

[-] Munrock@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 10 months ago

Change BRICS to Belt and Road Initiative Community of States maybe.

[+] whodoctor11@lemm.ee 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 25 points 10 months ago

The US-Saudi alliance is the keystone of the petrodollar, if Russia and China manage (with a little help from the US self-sabotaging by alienating most of the world with sanctions overreach and bad diplomacy that is perceived as disrespectful and bullying) to rip Saudi Arabia away from Washington, even just partly, that could snowball into the entire structure of US global financial dominance collapsing. All it takes is for the Saudis to start selling their oil in regional currencies instead of the dollar. Of course being in BRICS is not exclusive with having good ties to the US, at least on the surface, that's why it's so appealing to a lot of countries. After all, India was able to be recruited to the so-called "Quad" and be in BRICS at the same time. But it makes it much harder for the imperialists to drive wedges between its members and isolate individual countries that it decides to target.

[-] hglman@lemmy.ml 16 points 10 months ago

It's not a military pact.

[-] soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If Saudi Arabia was that much allied with the u.s. it'd have accepted Israel and wouldn't be criticized that much, and would also play its expected role against Iran, they also made peace with Yemen, i didn't expected that. Don't forget that S.Hussein was also our ally in the past, things change. As long as it's good news for them and not bad news for the others then it's a reason to rejoice i.m.h.o.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, are the three most important countries in the Middle-East, with a historical influence going back farther than England's influence in the European Union. The United Arab Emirates also have a lot of influence.
I just hope that they won't be sanctioned or something.

[+] whodoctor11@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] sevenapples@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 10 months ago

UAE and Jordan are Arab states that have recognized Israel

[+] soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml -7 points 10 months ago

They're possibly the country that is doing the most for islam(ism)(, i'm not sure but that's quite possible), i'd "simp" for them any day(, though obviously less than towards the Almighty), sorry 🤷‍♂️.

[-] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 10 months ago

Saudi Arabia is the country doing the most for Islam? In what way?

[-] soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Books, mosques, organizations, money, shared partnerships with other muslim countries, medias, ...
Even in non-religious domains, they're making themselves&islam heard in sports(, even e-sports), and by hosting a lot of western businessmen, influencers, or other wealthy people, they're also trying to export their own manufactured products and local research, i wouldn't underestimate their potential.
(And if they invest in desalination(, with solar panels,) and other terraforming technologies they can even grow( back) forests in deserts i believe/suppose ^(not sure they need it, but that'd be a cool sight))

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 10 months ago

It's probably not my business to weigh in on this subject but this is a pretty weird take considering that Saudi Arabia is most notorious for spreading Wahhabism which is an ideology basically created by the CIA for the purpose of countering the spread of socialism. I would say Iran has a much more positive and much more clearly anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist influence in religious matters. But that's just my opinion.

[-] soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml -3 points 10 months ago

One can love both.

[-] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 10 months ago

Why would you love Saudi Arabia considering what its government has done to the people of Yemen?

[-] soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm truly ashamed not to have read any book on this subject, and i still can't defend the point of view of the south, but even the north is wrong overall. If they want to be united, it would benefit both sides if that was done in diversity, and there's no reason for bordering countries to feel somehow threatened by an expansion of influence of an enemy if it's your ally, and if his(/her/..) expansion of influence is your expansion of influence.
My initial argument was that the cause for the civil war isn't primarily Saudi Arabia, they came afterwards and i'm glad that this war has stopped before claiming even more victims.
However, i'd also like to point out that, without needing to really grasp the history of that country(, i'm obviously biased towards the leftists), there's a war because both sides haven't found a way to be united in diversity. And also that, e.g., the expansion of Iran wouldn't be a threat among allies, they always held an important part among muslims, Egypt and the Arabic Peninsula as well(, every muslim know that sunnis and shias can obviously live together). The so-called expansion of Iran in Yemen wouldn't mean much if its expansion already reached Morocco, and Saudi Arabia's influence already reached Indonesia ^(, there wouldn't be a point in saying "i'm closer to this country than you", such proximities would come and go without consequences). Who cares if our laws and our point of view aren't imposed in the countries we're united with, we'll learn from each other and lead with our example, at least we'll keep our own differences(, if our arguments ^(propaganda) beat theirs [1]), it's not that bad if they keep their own differences as well.
I.d.k., is it rational to claim that every single conflict would have been solved if both sides agreed to be united in diversity ?

[1] : If a strong enough group decides to establish a community inside a country, their will and number could force the government to allow them more diversity(, but sill in unity, with a common army, a set of common laws, some common medias, celebrations, languages, projects, enterprises, associations, and other ways to ensure a lasting friendship). There wouldn't be any territorial/economic/demographic/.. loss, separatism would be rendered impossible by the country, and forbidden by international laws, as would be not allowing most possible demands of differences.
The problem, however, could be that allowing the spreading of "othernesses" in our territory(, from inside or outside,) may result in the disparition of our own differences/peculiarities. Since i can't imagine the ideals of capitalism spreading like that ^(, at least not by the workers themselves), but only ideologies that i support, such spreading would represent the popular progression of ideas towards something better/'more just/virtuous/desirable/..', as long as it's natural.
As long as a (part of a )country agrees to be united, it should be allowed to become almost as different as it could ever want, even if it contaminates or is contaminated by the rest, as long as this contamination stays natural.
Capitalists-owned countries would refuse to unite with socialists countries because they're afraid of being unable to convince the ignorant workers that it's against their interests, it's always suspicious when a side doesn't feel confident enough to defend its position(, and in this case causes wars to avoid ever having to).

Since i'm already off-topic, i'd also add that the election of a law or president ^(for representative republics) should be canceled if the results promised/predicted aren't obtained.

[-] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 10 months ago

I'm not sure I see your point. How does that justify Saudi Arabia entering a civil war using Amerikan weapons and enforcing a shipping blockade to starve civilians?

[-] soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

In short : It's good not to forget, but if i never forgive then i'll always find a reason to hold a grudge against someone. I prefer to have Saudi Arabia with us than against us(, the same could be said of any country), not you ? It's up to north yemenis to hold a grudge against their support for south Yemen, but your criticism should be primarily directed at the south, and understand why the north acted like they did as well.

As a prelude for the longer answer below, i "know" just enough to understand that it's complicated, because they have a long history which needs to be understood in order to grasp the causes, i'll stop hereafter at their revolution of 2011 but i've absolutely no doubt that we would need to go further in time.
It's interesting to note that we(sterners) were supporting the royalists against the republicans in the long civil war that started in 1962 b.t.w. I have suspicions that, back then, Saudi Arabia acted in order to avoid being "contaminated" by republicanism(, like european countries after the french revolution, the west with socialism, or, supposedly, current oligarchic governments with an hypothetic direct democracy, as well as some states/civilizations towards other religions such as the anti-islamic propaganda during the middle-ages(, or internal schisms like protestantism//catholicism), etc.)

The Houthis are against Saudi Arabia, it's in the interest of the latter not to let open enemies proliferate at your borders. On the other side the Houthis('Ansar Allah'/"God's auxiliary/supporters") have a vision for a Middle-East independant from the west and were actively against the invasion of Iraq, if i understood correctly.
I won't continue this post, just end it with saying that if Saudi Arabia is united with Iran, if the North&South are allied with them and each other, and other countries as well, in a diversity which accepts the republicanism of some countries and the royalism of others, who even celebrate it, then these causes would cease to exist and these wars could end, everyone would gain as much power as if they militarily invaded every other country in the alliance, the only difference would be that these countries wouldn't end up as uniform/homogeneous ^(, at least not immediately, some contamination and progressive uniformisation may appear if effective counter-measures aren't taken). We're not uniting for reasons that i'm still searching for, and there's certainly solutions for them, i can't believe that conflicts&wars can only be solved through a homogeneity afraid of any possible internal schism, and progress.

[-] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 10 months ago

of course I would prefer having Saudi Arabia on China's side rather than Amerika, I just don't see how SA is good for Muslims

[-] soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Are you making an allusion to the destruction of ancient buildings around Mecca ?
Or is it that you may want to have a discussion on wahabbism and/or salafism, and how it's not muslim enough for you ? I undoubtedly have much to learn about everything, so i'd very much like to have an exchange if you're interested and know things about it.
In my point of view, we're praising the same God, the only being that could possibly be 'worthy of'/'defined under'/defining the highest possible title. And theocracies are disappearing, i won't give up on them as long as they don't give up on our God. Some things are too important to be held back by details on religion, or politicial, or socio-economic structures, they're wearing my colors and i'm wearing theirs as far as i'm concerned.

[-] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 10 months ago

I'm not talking about buildings, I'm talking about their far-right domestic policies (particularly when compared to some other Muslim countries like Iran), and their actions in Yemen

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 10 months ago

It gets a lot harder to sanction these countries if they join a trade alliance. Not impossible. They'll still need dollars for a good while yet. But it becomes more challenging and the would-be sanctioned states become more resistant to it.

[-] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Agreed. That said, anyone trying to create an alliance against / an alternative to NATO and the IMF, after decades of US destroying every opposition to its hegemony, will mostly find allies that are far from glamorous

[-] aleshasmiles@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 10 months ago

It's not about ideology. It's about providing an alternative to the hegemon. Seeing those who are usually imperialist running dogs now beginning to choose the alternative is a win.

[-] kig_v2@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 10 months ago

I think the Saudi's status as an ally of the US is increasingly contentious. Things have been less-than-friendly over the past few years. Them beginning to make peace with Iran, showing interest outside of the West and outside of the petrodollar, not so readily adhering to the US's demands following Ukraine...

It's hard to say if they just see the US as a leperous beast killing itself and all who stick by its side, or if this is just the whims of the winds, but to me I see Saudi/US relations continuing to deteriorate. Them joining BRICS will surely been seen as another crypto-intolerable slight to the Empire.

[-] Pili@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Yeah I'm surprised to see Argentina on the list. But isn't India fascist also?

[-] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 10 months ago

That's kind of a weird club, ngl

[-] Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml 16 points 10 months ago

Invited not admitted.

[-] ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 10 months ago

now get in socialist africa, BF, niger, angola ect

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 10 months ago

i see bear, sic!

This one

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 10 months ago

I warned you I meant what I said – it's a bear – if you get your leg eaten, that's on you.

[-] Aru@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Slipknot

[-] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 10 months ago

Can any comrades give us the equivalents in non-Latin alphabet? Curious to see if any other meanings float to the surface in characters, Cyrillic, or abjad.