Topic: Energy Crisis 2.0 in the New World Order era - page 9. (Read 2608 times)

1. Regarding "world order", I have a slightly different picture and considerations, and therefore we are likely to talk about different things, and therefore we will never come to a result
Let me explain what I mean by the phrase "world order":
I will not go back to the times of Ancient Greece, I will choose 20-21 centuries, where it can be clearly and verifiably shown.
The world order after the First World War we may not take into account, but we can mention it. Then there was the longest period of the agreed "world order" - the "Yalta-Posdam" period. But this world order ended around 1989-1991 (the fall of the Berlin Wall + the collapse of the USSR). After that there were several attempts to create a new "world order". Not even attempts, but the features of a new world order/order began to "emerge". And yes, here we can recognize - the decrease of influence of the WESTERN WORLD, not only the USA, because the USA is not the world hegemon, no matter how much someone would like it. The world is becoming multipolar. But... not everyone sees it the same way. For example, China believes that the world became not MONOPOLAR after the collapse of the USSR, but BIPOLAR, where the tops are the US and China. Now there is a division of the world into 2 clearly defined "camps" - the Global West and the Global South. But even here everything is not very clear and understandable yet. Plus a third "hole in the world" is emerging - rogue countries together with terrorist countries of all types - from classical to economic terrorists, plus saboteurs and corrupt politicians/regimes.  
2 From your description it is more correct to speak not about the world order but about "US hegemony", although this is also debatable
3. Regarding "the US invades". I won't discuss the causes and effects and results now. But I will say one thing - the USA in the 20th-21st century did not invade a single millimeter of foreign territory to itself. Do you feel the difference? So the example is clearly not the best, especially in comparison with Russia. By the way - Britain/France/.... and many other "enslavers of foreign territories", in the second half of the 20th century gave freedom to all their colonial territories. And Russia?

The Saudi regime is a US backed dictatorship that is forced to support Israel. However, the cost of this support is seen over the past 12 days. Not to mention the people of Arabia support Palestine, despite the dictators. This makes things very complicated.
Not to mention Yemen, the country Saudi regime invaded (9 years) and has a beef with them is ready to find an excuse to break the cease fire and bomb them back to stone ages.
In short the Saudi regime is forced to support Palestine at least with empty words, they don't actually support it.

Two days ago I would have said we are far from the possibility of an embargo, but because of how things change very quickly today we are much closer.

The tensions are rising very fast after the Israeli terrorists murdered over a thousand innocent people taking shelter in a Red Cross sanctioned hospital last night.

Even more so after Biden practically signed the death warrant of every single CENTCOM servicemember by officially saying they stand with the terrorists.
US bases in Iraq are being shelled as we speak (at least two airbases the Al-Harir and Al-Asad). Also Jordanians have stormed both US and Israeli embassies. Same in Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, etc.

The events of next 24-48 hours can determine the size of this war. For example if US decides to respond to these small attacks, the attacks on US bases would increase in number and strength. Like what happened a couple of months ago in Syria.

The war between Israel and Hamas actually complicates matters more. The United States will support Israel and therefore the E.U. will also support Israel, and with oil-rich regions like Saudi Arabia and Iran supporting Palestine.

I believe the result might be, all deals between Saudi Arabia and the United States/Israel to increase oil production will be thrown out the window. There's probably going to be ANOTHER Oil Embargo as a possibilty.

Oil Embargo during 1973, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

Palestine is not a new negative, a repeat of conflict is recognizable as failure by most in and around that situation.  'US strategic oil reserves is at its lowest '   That part is more relevant to the argument as it should be the end of a program of selling, the reasons for energy price falling is long term and selling reserves has not altered that.  USA itself has an excess of gas, distributing that is occurring but natural gas is harder to supply the further across the world it is that requires it.
  We're really referring to commodity cost vs fiat inflation, prices will rise no matter what.   Alongside that the markets nationally are developing but not fast enough to meet demand overall especially in Asia I think there is the greatest shortage and demand rise with little supply in India or China.

If we are having this consumption of energies in abundance doesn't mean they can't went down in low supply, the most effective utilization for energy is to create an alternative to it and also encourage for recycling of the same energy for the people's use, there are other natural means we can also develope and generate energies from, all these will make the dependent on diesel or premium motor spirit reduced, then we also need to work out means to reduce global warming through the inefficient energy waste to the atmosphere affecting the ecosystem.

The World Order keeps changing every couple of decades and in that change different countries come to power, some lose their power entirely, sometimes partially. To put in three words, any new world order is the "shift of power". For example the Order before the last was a dual polar world where US and USSR were the powers. Before that it was UK instead of US.

In the New World Order, like other times, the power will shift. To which countries? It is not predictable, we can only speculate. But one thing is certain the last Word Order was the first time the world was unipolar and US reigned for ~30 years. That time has ended which simply means that all the powers US used to have over that time are going to slowly be taken away, some partially and some completely.

One of these powers were of course the Dollar and the endless printing of it followed by exporting the inflation to the rest of the world. In other words dedollarisation is only part of that transition.

But there is a lot more.
For example a lot of supposedly "international" organizations that were in reality American such as United Nations are going to either be dismantled or see a fundamental change to become actually international, maybe even change location to a more neutral place.
Another one would be that same exact acts won't be treated differently. For example when US invades a country it is the same as when Russia invades a country, as opposed to US invasions being called "war for piece" while Russian invasion be called "invasion"!

And a lot more. But how the world is going to be in the New Order remains to be seen because it depends on a lot of things like which players are going to rise to power and how much power each of them are going to have, how each country is going to get through this transitional phase, etc. and the transitional phase is chaotic by nature.

All opinions with reasoning have a right to life, it's silly to deny it.  I have one simple question - what in your understanding is the "New World Order"? I just want to understand how you evaluate or understand it. Different readings of the same expression can lead to senseless disputes because of equal perception of the essence. Some people, for example, think that it is "dedollarization" or, for example, "shifting the center of decision-making and influence towards the global South". So I will be glad to hear your position on the meaning of the expression "New World Order" ?

let me share another PoV regarding the situation in occupied Palestine concerning other countries and corridors:

As I pointed out in my other topic the biggest mistake any country can make these days is not accepting that the Old World Order is officially dead and in this transitional phase to the New World Order we only have a handful of "players" and the rest of the countries have to choose their side and play for one of these "teams". Preferably for the more powerful winning side.
In this "game" there are only two sides, East and West with West having only one player (US) while the East has 3 (Russia, China, Iran).
At this time if a country is geographically located in the East and is playing for the West (and vice versa), they will have to face the consequences. This is why we can no longer have any country that tries to play in the middle or stay neutral. This is why a country like Turkey for example that plays in the middle faces 80%-100% inflation, negative foreign reserves and is up to its neck in debt. This is why Poland, even small countries like Lithuania and Latvia have chosen side and are actively playing for that side. This is why we see Japanese laws are changing and Japan is being armed for war (for the Western side!). and so on...

Case in point the 2023 G20 summit. When some people were celebrating G20 summit with the Arabs and Indians participation with loads of propaganda in the mainstream media, what none of them realized (or wanted to hear) was that the decisions made in G20 was part of the Western puzzle which meant Eastern countries that participated in it, sooner or later would have to face the consequences of playing for the other side.
This was also clear from the fact that neither one of the 3 Eastern "players" were in it. That is: Russian president did not participate, neither did Chinese and Iran has never been part of it.

So when the IMEEC was agreed there, everyone should have expected it to blow up like this. A much longer, more expensive, more costly and far less secure corridor linking India to Europe through UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and finally the terrorist organization Israel. Not only this was economically and logistically stupid but also it was basically declaration of war against the Easter superpowers since it was going against all their corridors.

With Palestine rising up, IMEEC is no more than a fancy dream... and we have to wait to see at what degree these countries can come back to the Eastern controlled corridors that were previously established and agreed upon: namely Iran-Armenia-Georgia-EU, Iran-Turkey-EU, Iran-Iraq-Syria-EU.

P.S. Note that the corridor plan that went up in smokes wasn't just for goods, it also included energy transfer.