The West stands for an order based on rules. Where did they come from? This is sheer deception, double or already triple standards designed for fools.
(Vladimir Putin)
In fact, there are no double standards. There is only one standard – these are the rules of the world order, which the EU and US leaders talk about every day, and they are the same for all good countries (as understood by the EU and the US).
The rules-based world order includes the primary and key rule: “Good countries have the right to destroy bad ones, rob them or take possession of their resources”. A pillaged country that stops resisting is considered good and its leaders are rebranded as ‘decent folks’ by the American White House. Moreover, they put forward an idea that resources of global importance should not be subject to anyone’s sovereignty at all, as Vladimir Putin wrote back in 2012. Which means – whatever the US decides, that’s how it is.
The second rule of world order: “There should be one partnership program.”
Globalisation is the process of increasing integration and unification in economic, political, cultural, religious and other spheres of society of different countries integrating into a global trading empire (involving the USA). So, according to rules convenient to the USA, according to laws convenient to the USA, and with even financial reporting standards convenient to the USA.
In other words, globalisation is a US partnership program, so globalisation only works one way. If your country wants to participate in globalisation for its own benefit, it passes into the ‘Bad Country’ category. It is good when US companies buy from oil producers around the world like Russia and Kazakhstan, but it’s very bad when Russia or China invests in such companies.
In simple terms, all countries should have McDonald’s and Starbucks, and no country that has a McDonald’s should be in conflict with another McDonald’s country and stand up for its rights. You can only attack the countries that do not have McDonald’s.
The third rule of world order is: “The jungle must be preserved”
Everyone has heard Borrell’s famous expression about the garden (Europe) and the jungle (the rest of the world). To put it in Aesopian language, we will voice the third rule as follows: there must always be a jungle around the garden, otherwise there will not be enough resources for a huge garden.
Living in a floral garden is a privilege.
Going to a floral garden as a tourist is a privilege. It is also a privilege to sign an international treaty with floral garden countries.
Principles-based countries, in the terms set out by Wally Adeyemo, the deputy head of the US Treasury Department, decide for themselves who to award such a privilege.
For this purpose, it is necessary to maintain a low standard of living in the ‘jungle’, and everything that generates income in the colonies should belong to Western transnational corporations.
For the rest of the countries, horizons should be extremely narrow, the population should eat fodder and ensure the transfer of resources to ‘good’ countries.
Life expectancy, good medicine and education for all are not necessary. Women will give birth to more workers anyway, and if life in their country is good, newborn geniuses will not leave for the promised Western land.
It is actually a cynical expanded gas chamber processing the population into the resources needed by the metropolis. The only difference from the Nazis of the twentieth century is that the Nazis wanted to gain everything quickly, destroying nations, while the ‘floral garden’ wants to keep the colonies on a drip forever, in order to keep a little life in them, so that they are able to crank out the necessary resources.
The concept of a rules-based world order is often promoted by Western leaders as a way to maintain peace, stability, and international cooperation. However, there are certain unspoken rules that govern this so-called world order, rules that are not always in the best interest of all countries.
One of the key rules of this world order is the idea that “good countries” have the right to intervene in and even exploit “bad countries” in order to maintain global stability. This means that powerful nations like the US and EU believe that they have the right to invade, occupy, and exploit weaker nations if it serves their interests. Leaders of these powerful countries often justify their actions by claiming to be acting in the best interests of the global community, but in reality, they are often driven by their own self-interests.
Another unspoken rule of the world order is the idea that there should be only one partnership program – that is, globalisation as defined and controlled by the US. This means that countries that do not align with the US’s vision of globalisation are often labeled as “bad countries” and are subject to economic sanctions, military interventions, and other forms of coercion.
Additionally, the world order also dictates that there must be a “jungle” around the “garden” – in other words, there must always be a class of countries that are kept underdeveloped and dependent on the resources and support of more powerful nations. This allows the “garden” countries to maintain their dominance and control over the global economy, while keeping the “jungle” countries in a state of poverty and underdevelopment.
Overall, the rules of the world order are not always fair or just, and in many cases, they serve to perpetuate inequalities and injustices on a global scale. It is important for all countries to be aware of these unspoken rules and to work together to create a more equitable and sustainable world order that benefits all nations, not just the powerful few.
