Who said this "There is no permanent friendships in international politics but only permanent interests"
5 days ago | 0
How can putin be laughing at what trump is saying he doesn't understand English 🤔
1 week ago | 8
Absolutely deluded. There never was any law or order in geopolitics. Every country did what it thought was best for them even if it's legally or morally wrong. It's a free real estate. Law of the jungle. Eat or be eaten.
1 week ago | 8
Something the uk could learn from ‘UK first’ stop all foreign. aid illegal immigration’s help our own people first.
1 week ago | 4
Мы поддерживаем первоначальные встречи для документирования работы по прекращению конфликта.
1 week ago | 1
Putin doesnt like trump, he uses him and its hilarious to watch
1 week ago | 2
Easy question to answer, the rules based system is superior, but when you're dealing with countries that don't play by the rules, eventually the deal is off....
5 days ago | 0
Alliances happen before conflict & usually NOT ratified by Civilian populations, treaties happen after conflict, only one of those is good for Civilian populations. Skip the (planned) disaster, make treaty's happen. Words from one such Treaty "...reaffirming their faith in the purposes & principles of the Charter of the U.N & their desire to live in Peace with all Peoples & all Govts, and desiring to strengthen the fabric of Peace ..."
1 week ago | 2
I’m of the accordance that what comes around will go around. And there will always be a trend upon nations in different eras of history. In the 900s to the 1200s it was about authority to rule, then in the 1400s to the 1900s, it was a trend of global empires. Now out of those predictable 1900s imperial trends, something new will emerge. We’re fabricating that personality as we live now, and for now it’s confusion and doubt about the future, when really we the people should be the ones destined to control that fate in our nations. The next step I would argue is not of authority but more of restraint & compliance to citizens and their views in the online internet space. The internet has given a voice to billions who never had it before, and that many voices will always have many things to say. And like squeezing a roll of toothpaste, when they start, it is almost impossible to revert. It’s simply riding past decades now, but as we draw into the 2030s, I would not be surprised if citizens become more politically powerful than they’ve ever become in history, and leaders will need to curtail those wants and needs of them more often to prove they themselves are capable of leading into the near future
1 week ago (edited) | 0
In the recent meetings with Putin and the European leaders, we saw the first steps towards the creation of a world's government.
1 week ago | 0
Times News
Is the Old World Order Dead? I Times Opinion
WATCH NOW: https://youtu.be/4T6oSqazmlw
The global rulebook is falling apart.
We are living in an age where the pursuit of national advantage seems to reign supreme.
Alliances are buckling as countries put national interest first and resort to threats and the use of force. But for decades, Western democracies comforted themselves with the idea that we were better because we stood up for the rules-based order.
When the Cold War ended, progressive leaders like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair tried to reinforce that idea with new treaties and laws.
But in the past twenty years those ideas have faltered - China and Russia have defied assumptions about who is / was on the ‘right side of history’ and now, leaders like Donald Trump see political gold in ripping up the rulebook entirely.
So what even is the rules-based order? Why did we have it in the first place?
And with so many big powers, from the US to China, Russia, or India, ready to pursue their interests ruthlessly, does clinging to international law make you look principled or just naive?
1 week ago | [YT] | 440