(The article mentions the "Global South" - I had to look it up. That's a pretty broad region that includes all of South America, Mexico, all of Africa, South Asia.... it seems unlikely all these regions are moving off the dollar.)
The US Government has gone to War with or at the very least militarily involved with the entire World except for 3 countries: Andorra, Bhutan, and Liechtenstein. You vastly underestimate how much bad blood US Government has created over the years with various countries in their own capacities. Heck the USG spies on its own all-weather Allies and recently blew up the Nord Stream Pipeline (in a covert operation no less).
> I get that Russia, China would try to diversify — not a surprise though.
You might want to include India in the list too. And it should come as a surprise to you that there are plenty of other countries, who have been historically neutral, are badly wanting to diversify and de-dollarize. India now does trade directly in INR with 18 countries [1]. Just a year ago there were only 4 countries we traded in INR with (this is apart from the 18 new countries that we added recently). If this doesn't ring alarm bells nothing else will.
> (The article mentions the "Global South" - I had to look it up. That's a pretty broad region that includes all of South America, Mexico, all of Africa, South Asia.... it seems unlikely all these regions are moving off the dollar.)
You are unfortunately living in a bubble.
[1]: https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/rbi-allows-banks-fr...
This is bullshit.
The truth is, there is no public common knowledge about who did this. So unless you are leaking confidential information here, you are just speculating.
There is no ambiguity about the Biden Administration’s intent to bring an end to the project. But his answer leaves open the question of the lengths the US was willing to go in order to see that intent fulfilled. It’s plausible but not unambiguously true that the US was involved. Unless, of course there is evidence I’m not familiar with.
"Nord Stream 2" was completed, but blocked by sanctions (as a result of Ukrainian War). "Nord Stream 1" was operational, but Gazprom (Russia) halted delivery at least a month before the sabotage.
So you could very easily twist the argument and say that blowing NS1 was an attempt (by Russia) to force NS2 approval and put more pressure on Germany to break sanctions. Note that immediately after that event gas prices went up, even though NS1 was not delivering gas at that time. If the winter was not mild, it could end in very favorable outcome for Russia.
It's literally a Google search away.
Cyprus, Switzerland, Malta, Scandinavia, Finland, Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal (unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it), Mongolia, Nepal, all of the former Soviet Union (except stuff like paying to get nuclear waste and weapons properly disposed of, which is even less of "militarily involved" and even less cause for bad blood), big chunks of Africa - Morocco, Algeria and Tunis (unless you count Operation Torch to free the Vichy France protectorates in favour of Free), South Africa, Rwanda, South Sudan, etc. Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch even if I might be mistaken on one or two.
All that to say, there's no need to exaggerate American warmongering, imperialism and neo-colonialism. It has done insurmountable damage to many counties and resulted in millions if not tens of millions of dead, all for profits of American corporations. Exaggerating it makes it more easily refutable and minimises the suffering caused.
> recently blew up the Nord Stream Pipeline (in a covert operation no less).
Citation very much needed.
> You might want to include India in the list too. And it should come as a surprise to you that there are plenty of other countries, who have been historically neutral, are badly wanting to diversify and de-dollarize
Historically neural implies something has changed by de-dollarising. Nobody owes the US trade in USD. If sovereign countries want to trade with their own currencies, more power to them.
And that proves absolutely nothing. Promises and threats are cheap.
As an increasingly old white man, I am ready for old white men to get the hell out of the way.
Yes by militarily involved I do mean having military bases as well. "Doesn't cause bad blood" -> you are talking from perspective of a Westerner/American (I am making an assumption here). It benefits US to have a military base but need not necessarily benefit the host country. Almost always there will be a compromise, "a choosing of lesser of two evils" so to speak, when a Nation has to give up sovereign space for a military of another Nation to occupy its lands. It is out of desperation. In some cases it is out of pressure too.
Which is why I consider it "military involvement". There is a stark contrast between having an Embassy in a Country vs a Military Base in a Country. The host country can always call for shutdown of a foreign Embassy and expel Diplomats. These rules are governed by World organizations like the United Nations. However, a Host country cannot expel a military base from its land unless it is written down in the agreement between the two Nations. Even then, the actual ability to shut down an already established military base is significantly costlier on the host nation if it has lesser military strength (which it most certainly has, else why would it want to host another Nation's military in the first place?).
I also include coup-de-tats as there is covert operations which involves using militia or even military of countries where USG wants Government to be toppled. The most recent example is that of Pakistan where there is widespread allegation within the country that USG along with Pakistani military toppled the previous regime. Now whether those allegations are true or not is secondary. The sentiment within the country prevails. So when I said "bad blood" I mean it as a "perception of the people on ground" sort of thing.
> Cyprus, Switzerland, Malta, Scandinavia, Finland, Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal (unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it), Mongolia, Nepal, all of the former Soviet Union (except stuff like paying to get nuclear waste and weapons properly disposed of, which is even less of "militarily involved" and even less cause for bad blood), big chunks of Africa - Morocco, Algeria and Tunis (unless you count Operation Torch to free the Vichy France protectorates in favour of Free), South Africa, Rwanda, South Sudan, etc. Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch even if I might be mistaken on one or two.
I talked about military involvement. It need not necessarily mean the War was not justified. It could very well be justified and it could be fought on the sides of Allies too. However, when a foreign Nation involves in any War to assist another Nation (especially in civil wars), there will always be bad blood created within the Nation as there is one section of the populace who would be targeted by strikes. You can call them "rebels" but for those "rebels" it is an invasion of their homeland. I am sure if I do further research I'll be able to find US military involvement in every one of these countries that you listed in some form or the other. Of the top of my head, US was involved in the Nepalese Civil War where it supported the Gorkha Empire against the Communist Party of Nepal.
> All that to say, there's no need to exaggerate American warmongering, imperialism and neo-colonialism. It has done insurmountable damage to many counties and resulted in millions if not tens of millions of dead, all for profits of American corporations. Exaggerating it makes it more easily refutable and minimises the suffering caused.
Not exaggerating. "Militarily involved" does not necessarily mean going into a country guns blazing. One can always covertly bring about regime change or tilt an ongoing civil war within another country in one's favour. Almost always creates bad blood among a section of the populace.
Nobody is occupying us. We asked the US to come help us. We share culture and way of life. There were no changes about anything in our country other than increased security. Occupation looks different - look at Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine to get a feel for it.
It is not a question of whether you are more comfortable living under Russian control or US "partnership". Eventually, in the long run, relationships of this kind sour inevitably. Because there will always be divergence in interests. The moment that happens you will feel "stuck" with someone you don't want anymore but can't do anything about it. Colonization comes in various forms. Setting up military bases is one of them. This bonhomie is good as long as relationship between your country and US is good. What will you do if it turns sour in the future? No one can predict the future. Who would have predicted splitting of Germany? Who would have predicted collapse of Soviet Union? You talk of Europe as if it is one entity "sharing values" with USA. A quick look into European history and you'll see it was always engaged in Wars not just with the entire World but with each other. It's not even 80 years since Nazi Germany came attacking most European countries. Don't forget your history and think everything will be hunky dory going forward. This sort of myopic view is what causes one to become complacent and ultimately end up colonized.
If Europe is so United in its values why was there even a Brexit in the first place? If Europe could not keep the Brits within its own fold you are thinking you can keep America permanently within the fold? US is not there to help you out. It's there only for its own interests. It just so happens that at this moment in time your interests align. That's all.
I don't know about the British, and I am not saying there is European unity. My country's partnership with the US is very natural since we share culture and way of life. There's no need to "keep the US within the fold", we simply think alike.
You comparing it to an occupation is simply absolutely wrong. The partnership is of totally different nature. We know exactly what occupation looks like - we had the Nazi occupation, and later the Soviet occupation that ended in 1989 - I remember it myself. Both of these directly changed our governments and tried to germanize or russify us. The US never did anything even remotely similar to what they did. The US came with their military hardware and used it to protect us, never anything else.
It’s good to learn from history, and I would say in Europe at least most people are very aware of the past, and many things are being done to safe guard and make sure we keep the ideals of democracy strong.
In Europe but also globally there is a problem right now of far right incursions, hate, fear mongering and strongman politics. Noticeable here is that Brexit happened under a Tory (right wing) government with barely a slitter of a majority.
That is to say, our own toxic nationalism and entrenchment in the past keeps us from moving forward. We need to build global alliances based on cooperative ideals (and there are many such platforms) and with idea of helping eachother out.
Not to exclude real-politik where nations work only for their own interests, that is pretty much a given, but unions can work, if we keep them working properly.
We can ask USA to leave and take their soldiers with them. And I have high confidence they will do just that.
That worked very well for Cuba and Guantanamo Bay since 1934.
Let us put your confidence to the litmus test:
1. What is the legal status of Puerto Rico?
2. Is it a State in USA or a Colony of USA?
3. Are Constitutional Rights defined in US Constitution applicable to residents of Puerto Rico?
4. Do they have voting representation in the US Congress?
> We can ask USA to leave and take their soldiers with them.
Good luck with that!
2. It is neither a state nor a colony (it is an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States).
3. Citizens of Puerto Rico are American citizens, so yes. The existence of the insular cases doesn’t negate that - there are other categories of U.S. citizens who don’t receive the full protection of the constitution.
4. They do not. If and when Puerto Rico becomes a state, they will.
Is basically a nice way of saying it is a Colony. Fact is that it is a Colony. "Unincorporated territory" is a BS term created out of thin air to save the US Government from obvious criticisms. [1] If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. In this case the duck is Colonization.
2. Read 1 above
3. Those "other categories of U.S. citizens" who don't receive the full protection of the Constitution have "opted" for it (for example: members of the military are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which imposes certain restrictions on their free speech, assembly, and association rights to maintain good order and discipline within the military - however, this is an "opt in" to have individual Rights restricted). They were not "born into it". Residents of Puerto Rico on the other hand are not given the full protection of the Constitution primarily based on where they are born. That is not equality by any means.
4. Exactly. And there was no choice given to Puerto Rico residents if they want to be part of the US or not. Since technically, Puerto Rico was colonized by Spain and then colonized by USA, it hasn't had a referendum asking if people want to remain with US or not. So currently, they are neither here nor there but hanging in between. Neither a "fully incorporated state" of USA, nor a completely free, independent State. Classic characteristic of a Colony.
[1]: https://ccrjustice.org/home/blog/2021/10/20/colony-colony-co....
Meanwhile, the US is faffing about with all sorts of internal initiatives that are detrimental and pointless on a grand scale. Every year they are poorer as a country, society and culture.
Just try and imagine how much collective brain-time is spent in the US discussing animal rights, DEI, free speech, activism, left/right politics, gun rights, drug legalization, etc.
That is brain time that could be spent feeding and uplifting the poor, building housing, mobilizing tech and military, building infrastructure and transport and and and.
Please lay off the news and look at stats. Facts trump narratives. Narratives exist to get clicks. Facts exist regardless of what people think.
That there are people in the US doing things you consider a waste of time does not mean "US on the way down". Go to this chart and click on Max time frame to get an idea of what's been happening with all the "faffing about" Americans have been doing: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp
Compare to the Eurozone, China, India, and Africa to get a relative idea. USA, China, and India have been going up like rockets.
I'm inclined to agree, but you had to provide the one counterexample that actually shows sanctions being legitimately used for good against a terrible human right abusing regime.
> Just try and imagine how much collective brain-time is spent in the US discussing animal rights, DEI, free speech, activism, left/right politics, gun rights, drug legalization, etc.
> Every year they are poorer as a country, society and culture.
Agree, the US is generally on a downward spiral for multiple reasons (mostly political deadlock due to a broken political system, massive amounts of time and efforts wasted on stupid niche issues, exceptionalism making them blind to fighting with problems the rest of the developed world has solved decades ago, economic and geopolitical development in the EU, China, India, Brazil, etc.). However, as of now, and for the foreseeable future they're still the primary military and economic power in the world. However better balance, for better and worse, is on the horizon.
The USA went to war against Spain on false pretenses, that was more than 100 years ago but not a small thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War#U...
The Wikipedia article presents different sides of the story, and my take is that the USA wanted to carve off the Spanish Empire and would use any excuse for that, a pattern repeated many times.
Not that the USA is unique in that. The point is that there are reasons for the rest of the world to resent the USA’s unchecked power, being wielded by small groups in there often to the detriment of the USA’s general population, as is happening now with de-dollarization.
The USA and its Western European puppets are becoming a much less reliable partner than we used to be, and the alternatives do not look as bad by comparison as they once did.
> The US currency now represents about 58% of total global official reserves, down from 73% in 2001 when it was the “indisputable hegemonic reserve,” the Eurizon pair said.
i hope you dont believe the absurb propaganda BS that Russia blew up their own pipeline...
Source?
> And other sources mentioned clearly it was an US operation.
You mean the Danish ones which point at Russian naval activity in the vicinity in the time shortly preceding the explosions?
https://www.newsweek.com/video-biden-saying-end-nord-stream-...
Are you living under a rock?
with ample warnings that they would resort to force if NATO continued to push for a regime opposed to Russia on their border.
> biggest country in Europe
Size does not matter, strength does. And the Ukrainian losses are huge, but nobody is talking about it in the news, because propaganda and the media only wants to focus on Russian losses.
Which war do you claim that US has had with Sweden?
[1] https://www.stripes.com/branches/marine_corps/2023-04-18/swe...