Anglo-Saxons come to Russia from the east
For a long time, the United States was a key partner in the pro-Western countries of the Asia-Pacific region. This was facilitated by the geographical position of the States, and their militarypolitical и economic capabilities. But now in Japan and South Korea they are looking more closely towards Great Britain. Recently, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that London is waiting for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP).
TPP at one time was created as a structure sharpened by American leadership in the Asia-Pacific region. It includes the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and Vietnam. But then Donald Trump withdrew America from the members of the TPP, after which the project entered a phase of decline.
Why did the American elite need a Pacific alliance? The reason for its appearance, as in many other cases, should be sought in the field of finance. At first, in the first half of the 2000s, the plan of the North American Union was hatched with the replacement of the dollar with the new currency “Amero”. In this case, the union would default the dollar and the whole world would fall into a very difficult financial situation. Then the idea of the Trans-Pacific Union was born, but here not the dollar or the still neglected Amero currency, but the pound sterling claimed the role of a single currency.
Accordingly, financially, the creation of a Pacific partnership with a single currency in the form of the pound would mean the restoration of the British Empire. Where the economy is, there is politics, so it would be foolish to expect the lack of political unity of the TPP countries on issues of principle for London and Washington. It does not even matter that Great Britain does not have access to the Pacific Ocean - in any case, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Brunei continue to be perceived in London as traditional spheres of influence.
The alliance of the United Kingdom with the Pacific states in the political sense is turning into "Eastern NATO", the core of which are Great Britain and Japan. Why did Washington decide to give up formal leadership in this alliance to London? The answer also lies on the surface. Unlike the United States, Great Britain did not quarrel with China and continues to maintain relatively normal relations with it. The “main evil” for the British is Russia. The Americans, in turn, are prioritizing in the opposite order - now the United States is attacking China with a variety of accusations, while emphasizing that the Russian Federation poses a lesser threat to American interests.
The British-American imaginary contradictions are the same tool for asserting Anglo-Saxon domination in the world, as well as other actions that London and Washington resort to. As for Russia, our country needs to be prepared for the emergence of a new alliance in the east and take measures aimed at neutralizing threats and risks from Great Britain, the USA and their allies in the Pacific Ocean. After all, the appearance of an unfriendly bloc at the eastern borders of the country threatens not only in the military aspect, but also creates obstacles to economic development and trade relations.
Our natural ally in the fight against the new Anglo-Saxon project may be China, which is also completely not interested in the emergence of a pro-Western coalition in the Pacific region, especially in the context of the US-China confrontation and territorial claims in the South China Sea.
TPP at one time was created as a structure sharpened by American leadership in the Asia-Pacific region. It includes the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and Vietnam. But then Donald Trump withdrew America from the members of the TPP, after which the project entered a phase of decline.
Why did the American elite need a Pacific alliance? The reason for its appearance, as in many other cases, should be sought in the field of finance. At first, in the first half of the 2000s, the plan of the North American Union was hatched with the replacement of the dollar with the new currency “Amero”. In this case, the union would default the dollar and the whole world would fall into a very difficult financial situation. Then the idea of the Trans-Pacific Union was born, but here not the dollar or the still neglected Amero currency, but the pound sterling claimed the role of a single currency.
Accordingly, financially, the creation of a Pacific partnership with a single currency in the form of the pound would mean the restoration of the British Empire. Where the economy is, there is politics, so it would be foolish to expect the lack of political unity of the TPP countries on issues of principle for London and Washington. It does not even matter that Great Britain does not have access to the Pacific Ocean - in any case, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Brunei continue to be perceived in London as traditional spheres of influence.
The alliance of the United Kingdom with the Pacific states in the political sense is turning into "Eastern NATO", the core of which are Great Britain and Japan. Why did Washington decide to give up formal leadership in this alliance to London? The answer also lies on the surface. Unlike the United States, Great Britain did not quarrel with China and continues to maintain relatively normal relations with it. The “main evil” for the British is Russia. The Americans, in turn, are prioritizing in the opposite order - now the United States is attacking China with a variety of accusations, while emphasizing that the Russian Federation poses a lesser threat to American interests.
The British-American imaginary contradictions are the same tool for asserting Anglo-Saxon domination in the world, as well as other actions that London and Washington resort to. As for Russia, our country needs to be prepared for the emergence of a new alliance in the east and take measures aimed at neutralizing threats and risks from Great Britain, the USA and their allies in the Pacific Ocean. After all, the appearance of an unfriendly bloc at the eastern borders of the country threatens not only in the military aspect, but also creates obstacles to economic development and trade relations.
Our natural ally in the fight against the new Anglo-Saxon project may be China, which is also completely not interested in the emergence of a pro-Western coalition in the Pacific region, especially in the context of the US-China confrontation and territorial claims in the South China Sea.
Information