Corridors and Contradictions. Thoughts On The G20

Now that the G20 is over, here's a brief overview of contextual aspects that I see as being overlooked and which do support the dynamic I see taking shape, and the possible course this presents.

This post and an upcoming short one can be seen as supporting material for that three part series, these offered as a way to seal the topic in a manner that allows me to feel that those facets I wished to communicate are just that.

All the screenshots included in this post are ones that came to me; absolutely no search was done to produce them; too many great examples to avoid another post even if I claimed to rarely beat a dead horse... right. I did say that.

Thus, I'd initially abandoned doing this piece, but mulling over Jeffrey Sachs' breakdown of the G20 delivered on The Duran eventually made me reconsider, and, well, here we are.

I get the sense that he and at least one Duran would find my interpretation comical even if they themselves show awareness of the dynamics at play between India and China, and, in reaction to Sachs' interpretation as concerns India, and albeit possessing utmost respect for professor Sachs, I do think he may be missing out on key factors. His reading of the situation appears to base itself greatly on diplomats and their diplomacy—of which, I've no doubt, India is top of class—whereas I've had my nose in it, so to speak, trying to read the population for some time.

I think all agree that 'population' can't be overlooked when considering forces that shape a nation's possible directions. 

That India would subordinate itself to the West isn't something I foresee; should that happen, it won't be willingly. Hence, what they alluded to, that "no rising power would subordinate itself to another power" isn't contested, though that's not the way that things always work out, as history teaches us. Consider: would the Ukrainians claim to be subordinates of the US? Yet...

But "partnership" or "collaboration", why are those automatically ruled out and jump straight to "subordination"?  

On the other hand, Dr. David Oualaalou, of Geopolitical Trends, may be short on consonants but, like Sachs, equally not short on good sense despite experience in Washington. He’s also homed in on an element of India that appears to be more controlled sparkle than genuine shine. I got the feeling that he's facing some pushback and anti-India accusations from some viewers lately.

I've long felt an attraction to India, nothing about that is false, and I do, still and wholeheartedly, believe that India presently has tremendous power; it's of enormous importance.

However, paying attention to daily news, one quickly gets the sense that it's the power linked to money and the ways that this translates into India sticking it to China that Indians have interpreted out of that  "importance".

And if you pay attention to daily events and the language that dominates periods and cycles, and if you notice the legal changes and the types of debates that are no longer tolerated, and if you consider the tensions and the ambitions, and if you put it all together, i don't know about you, but what I'm seeing unfolding is an accelerated repeat of history rather than India truly setting us on a new course.

For, between what's said and seen, the two don't connect, which is the aspect I wish to reinforce.  

Bharat, which is the Sanskrit name for India, has produced much buzz after appearing on the President's dinner invitation cards as well as being scattered across the summit. Yet, although with less noise, Bharat is what had appeared under Modi's name at the previous G20 summit held in Indonesia, sparking speculation then, too.

Indeed, a name change may very well be coming; a motion for such was called in parliament today. I've no further info on a possible vote at present.

I've nothing against such a change, though what this tends to signify, given the way it's been increasingly creeping into daily Indian life and the defensive and/or dismissive attitude demonstrated by all government officials when asked about its usage, all seems to indicate the kind of name change that usually accompanies a firm ideological takeover of a country, these often carrying regressive and oppressive measures, but not always.

First, a caveat and greater context:

I've since realized that I was my own worst enemy in the spring of 2022, wallowing and not taking advantage of what were actually encouraging visitor numbers, which I'd seen had I not chosen self-pity and dug through to properly untangle the raw data instead. Depression will do that; one's choices, when in that state, will amplify the gloom... so do the opposite.

Through feedreaders, it turns out, is how the majority read DMS&UY, which provides another situation where I'm always left with the sense that people wanna know what I think but not engage. Am I really that off putting? Certain 'people skills' aren't my forte, no argument there, but I'm quite personable, I assure you. The pills I take for my serial-dictatoring-space-killer-cadet tendencies seem to be working this time, I swear.

Nonetheless, the thing, with the thingy and lotsa numbers, it kinda indicates having crossed 600,000 pages through feeds for this month; That's never gone past 33,000 since resolving my issue. Not used to those numbers to be frank. Makes me uncomfortable. Thank you?

It's impossible to determine how many "reads" that represents, but, a high enough number so that, Sachs having said something that made me reflect on my approach, I do think it's proper that I clarify the following: 

This isn't an academic journal nor a governmentally-linked, worded-for-diplomacy effort. My selection of words is mostly geared toward "impact" and not prim-and-proper diplomacy as I represent no government nor entity and I also want to avoid putting readers to sleep and affect change, and must, therefore, use whatever 'muscle' I can to have an impact, hopefully a positive one.

However, undue vulgarity and bullying aren't what I wish to impress or encourage, and you can trust that I've calculated the use of such as justifiable and effective, and, to be honest: there are times when I'm occasionally made to feel that I may have had more of a diplomatic impact than our current crop of Western (un)diplomats.

I'm never in a real rush to post as I like to mull matters and I've learned the value of 'cooling off', so the emotions I wish to convey are genuine, not raw. But none of that necessarily makes it the best approach, and certainly not at all times. Should a mismatch occur—approach and time—I'd be very appreciative of any effort to let me know so I can rectify matters, if required.

Communications is far from 'new' to me, and though the modes are changing, some principles will always remain the same. Out of over 14,000 words, the last series had four carefully placed expletives, three of those directed at the same person and one aimed at no one. That's it, though the impression they left may have been different.

I again want to stress the 'calculated' aspect—properly applied or not—as a generalized insolence and lack of tact aren't traits I wish to encourage nor normalize, more so when foreign governments are concerned. 

As far as the recent posts go, I'd made a bad judgment call in part 2 with that 'stupid', wanting to play off of the ambiguity to have more impact in the closing section but decided I better clarify right at the top of part 3 to temper potential emotions going into the piece. That had been a bad call on my part, and I knew better. Was feeling defiant, I guess. I'm such a rebel. 

•     •     •

For Chavda... the following day he had a segment titled "Is Hinduism at risk of being erased". This, should you not be aware, is the Indian equivalent of the white-West's "Great Replacement" theory. In a country with over 80% Hindus. And people like me who attack Hindus are a threat to them. Screw that! My attack was justified. But I wanted it to be clear that I don't attack just anyone, even if they may hold overlapping viewpoints.  

In regard to MP Jaishankar and my attitude: I'm willing to play dumb on many levels should this avoid offending in a manner that cancels out or negates my message, but India, being a true place of contradictions, has a whole other facet that few seem to acknowledge, granting them more to worry over than those we're all told to fear.

This aspect is one I'd investigated and discussed as part of a series of posts (old site) which were mostly in reaction to an Indian news host's disproportionate and slightly unhinged coverage of the trucker's convoy, which provided an excuse to viciously attack Trudeau, a behaviour I tried to understand while validating actual, provable facts that never make it into the version still preferred by the anti-Klaus crowd.

The Indians don't match the Americans in terms of volume, but they're giving them a good run for their money. The number of publications and dummy publications that form a part of a huge, international disinformation network controlled by the RSS is head spinning. Quite a few of them in the US, too; they're everywhere, and almost always aimed at mid to small markets, i.e. "community" focused.

As I had also pointed out, the RSS backed Tulsi Gabbard—who has ties to the group, it appears—for her presidential attempt. 

Canada has India at number 3 out of all those nations who pose the greatest threat of "interference". Russia and China rank higher, much of that per established formality, but Poilievre is learning from the (US) Republican playbook and willing to exploit race and xenophobia for votes, so... rather than playing a productive part in our government, focusing on our very real issues, he's been stirring nothing but shit trying to suck the country into idiotic tribalism in preparation for potential elections.

And India clearly would prefer that Canada lands an "anti-Chinese" conservative government, thus feeding or amplifying Woke horrors and conservative talking points and putting their spin on the soap opera weaved by conservative circles and outlets. Getting Trudeau out would make them feel like they've gotten some revenge, is the sense I get. The screen capture, below right, is but one of many stories mocking Trudeau that they're managing to squeeze out of the G20.

India has been pretty much consistently crapping on our Prime Minister for some years now, ever since he dared voice a message of support for the Sikh farmers protesting in India, the same ones that New Delhi had met with water cannons and sticks on their arrival at the capital, hence why the truckers convoy "oppressive" BS is doubly infuriating when shouted from India.

Do know, India, it's a Canadian who initially conceived the G20, so, "without us", and all that.    

This tension is a situation Trudeau made worse by refusing to put a muzzle on Khalistan Sikhs now living in Canada, an act which I will proudly back my government for, as I refuse to let India regulate our freedom of expression, finding nothing I'd qualify as preferable in their speech laws.

Letting the Khalistani hold a referendum, this is what's created a very sour situation for Trudeau. However, that India should bully governments into blocking the Khalistani's symbolic act, done to determine the validity of a Sikh-led nation, demanding that the very act of holding a referendum be rendered illegal, this, I applaud Justin Trudeau for drawing the line between what actually constitutes terrorist action—against which Canada has made a promise—versus what constitutes the freedom of assembly and expression.

The US didn't respect that right where Sikhs tried to hold a referendum. Biden is the "good guy", per India.

I actually played a part in stopping funds going to the main organization linked to alleged terrorist activities, having noticed that Sikh's in Ottawa that Rebel News' sleazy Ezra Levant used to push his anti-trudeau bit were misrepresenting the case of genuine Sikh truckers trapped due to the blockade in Montana, doing so in order to draw donations. They'd raised over $40,000 in no time.

The then host of the Indian Gravitas, who has repeatedly made the claim that the West is indifferent to the "Khalistani terror" never seemed to catch on to that or report on it, too busy vilifying Trudeau for every aspect of that protest, each time vehemently pointing out that he shouldn't have said anything about the Sikh farmers.

Diplomacy. Even in India, it's not guaranteed if outside of diplomatic circles. 

The government made some mistakes regarding that protest's handling, but let's keep it real, please, as many details are missing from the more popular versions of that event is what i conclude. And it's been exploited by some who've packaged it into something other than the whole, for two things can be true at the same time, remember. 

Canada has placed one Khalistani group on and off of our "terrorist watch", and I suspect it's back on more as a diplomatic formality to appease some of that pressure albeit such matters are taken seriously at the federal level. Oh, yeah, while at it: much of the stuff that feeds the Trudeau Dictator narratives regard provincial, not federal, matters.

And there was no indigenous mass burial grave where one was said to be, it turns out; this is now established fact. India was all over that story, with specials about horrendous Catholics in Canada... wonder if they'll retract those now.

However, the fact that many Canadians accepted that this was a possibility reflects the history we know too well to be a part of Canada's, reminding us of the guilt that was to be had and which we still know holds true to some degree, Canada's indigenous peoples deserving more than they've been granted, to this day.

•     •     •

Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the New Democratic party and a practicing Sikh of Punjabi descent, is constantly attacked by Indian media (who also encourage it on social media), as they accuse him of meddling in Indian affairs due to his concern for the Sikh community in India, go figure. The Hindus will heap endless praise on any Hindu attaining any notable position anywhere in the world, but Singh, being a Sikh, even if the first  to hold such a position in our government, has received only scorn.

India's emphasis on being all-inclusive, and so on... I'm not sure we all share the same set of definitions.

Right now I'm upset with our government for our participation in that whole Ukraine debacle, but notice how Canada isn't partaking in the China folly except in limited ways, and mostly related to Huawei?  Which makes Trudeau a Peking Puppet or similar, right?

Sigh.

Frankly, hearing George Galloway cutting off a Canadian caller right away and crapping on him for having attempted to say that which I share, which is the thought that there appears to be much exaggeration concerning Trudeau, this, in between mentioning being truly open to any point of view, that established Galloway as only marginally better than many he complains about, in my opinion. I've never been a fan of Trudeau, but I'm not ashamed of him either and though many will complain, I'm hearing few real complaints that aren't about personal comforts or that aren't linked to globally-shared problems that no government has control over.

Vancouver is BC's concern, so I'm not sure why everyone blames Trudeau for anything happening there, or anywhere in Canada, as is the practice of that so-called documentary maker, Something Grunn or Gun or whatever. Don't care to look it up. Conservative propaganda. Trudeau didn't wave his Woke wand over Vancouver and the drug-related policies have been the same for over twenty years, as far as I know, this aspect actually drawing many Americans who are homeless and addicts. If things have spread well beyond Gasoline Alley, that's a sign of the times, not the policies. This is increasingly visible across Western cities.

Time for some to wake up and notice what's happening, perhaps? 

If one sensed a personal note in my curt message to Jaishankar, that's because there was. 

Keep in mind that what I just mentioned is done while constantly attacking anyone with any clout for anything they perceive as meddling in their affairs. The Obama drama mentioned in Part 1 lasted how many days? More than a week's worth, that's for sure.

Yet, because Canada refuses to round up any Sikh mentioning Khalistan, Indian media has since accused Canada of "harbouring terrorists and encouraging Khalistani extremists." No kidding.

Firstpost turned the mention of Trudeau missing the summit's dinner into a lengthy piece attacking several aspects of Canada and Trudeau, mentioning that "Social media is abuzz with claims that Canada’s prime minister Justin Trudeau, who is in New Delhi for the G20 Summit, has been snubbed by India" knowing full well that they're the ones who started the rumours.

The article adds: "This comes in the backdrop of India’s mounting concerns about pro-Khalistani extremism in Canada. The Indian Mission in Canada has time and again been targeted by pro-Khalistan protesters. It is to be noted that Trudeau, prior to reaching India, said he would raise the issue of ‘foreign interference’ in Canada."

I believe that a window was broken once during a protest, and two Indians are said to have been injured but received no medical care whatsoever (did they cut a finger picking up the glass?). Also, some small temples were "attacked" (see: one), but it turns out misguided youths had broken in to steal money for drugs, Canada wasn't letting terrorists attack their place of prayer.

I won't get into it here, but there's a reason why their citizens are upset with the Indian government. We've accepted many Sikhs in Canada, and all are good folks, but a tiny number are "extremists", per the flexible Indian definition, as there was a bomb some years ago, and, also, they want stuff the Hindus don't want! 

The "foreign interference" referred to is India's, which is an issue for us, as I pointed out. The article makes no mention of that, leaving readers to interpret it as a reference to other foreigners, not Indians, then adroitly switches to the conservatives' anti-China witch hunt against Liberals. However obvious it becomes due to a lack of finesse, news is nothing but games and narrative control for most of India's media and, the most important point of all: If the government is that tight on negative mentions of India, surely, they're fully aware of all the BS and anti-China and anti-PAK hate that's inseparable from their news and commentary.  They endorse it is the logical conclusion.

Further, seeing Jaishankar on ANI, identified as part of what I regularly scan through in part 2, was a surprise, and it's hard not to think that some of that message wasn't targeted at me as were other efforts. Not because I matter, but because they're that reactive and I've been on their radar for a while.

Monitoring through Seychelles last month, Bahrain this month, and Mauritianus before then, did I get that right? No worries, not expecting an answer. And what's in Singapore, is what I'm still wondering, that can't be just a hub?

Yeah, sure... whatever. The gloves are off...

As if I'll embark in that when my goal is peace and an end to that.

I can't—and won't—be accused of playing tit-for-tat for every sideswipe taken at Canada, as that'd be a full-time job, and then some. But, on occasion... 

•     •     •

Meanwhile... back to Khalistan, the mention of which is forbidden—all that area is the Punjab region, OK!

It should not be surprising to learn that Rishi Sunak was all too eager to bend on that issue. He now agreed to increase the detention of... Sikhs, according to some headlines.

The whole affair is steeped in hatred and encouraging more hate through its handling and compounded mishandlings.

And such things never end well.

All such situations concerning India are ones that the Indian government exacerbates, and bullying while playing the angel and victim are now a HUGE part of their tactics. Hence, there's a flip side to Jeffrey Sachs' position, which seems to disregard a whole other sphere and dynamic that Indians appear to be very comfortable with.

These are not terrorists, sorry.

Canada has always had good relations with the Chinese, and having the number one economy isn't in our collective priorities. I can't even imagine such a thing as a Canadian who's given that any serious thought.. 

To repeat, it's not all rainbows and unicorns, but there's plenty exaggeration about the state of affairs here in Canada and people like Viva Frei—oft given as reference for the hell that now is Canada—are pushing a narrative for attention and views or their own agenda.

Frei is still referring to the "Emergency Measures Act"  as the "War Act" or implying that the version Trudeau applied simply underwent a name change. Completely false. I had made the mistake on the first day, that's it. It's easy to get the details on that. And the restrictions that the EMA carry are tight despite the wide power that's temporarily granted.

Canadians wanted it; the government applied it, and the whole was tested, it being used for the first time (and last, hopefully). There are areas to fine tune, but it's nothing like the Act that had been rolled out during the FLQ crisis, the one and only qualified act of terrorism in Canada.

Rightwingers in other nations seem to be more worked up over that while the vast, vast majority of Canadians not keeping up with what Klaus Schwab is doing have long since put that affair behind and moved on, accepting that this was called for by 80% of the population and happy with the restrictions that were clearly identified, a time limit being big, unlike the act enforced in Ukraine, which has been abused to strip power from any opposition or voice and to skip the next elections...

Perhaps it was overkill, which is easy to claim long after the event, but at least we won't be talking about a 6-Jan for decades, as a similar plan is what organisers had had in mind until they realised how much they were making with donations. 

I point out the EMA bit given that Frei is an ex-lawyer now turned YouTuber, as he states, which means that he was either one hell of crappy lawyer that didn't bother with any details, or a willing grifter whose breathless rants try to convince viewers that Canada is to be overtaken by the Woke equivalent of Nazis any minute now and that voting for some dolt once an executive my father had fired about whom I've heard only stories relating to his incompetence from a wide array of people, well, he's Canada's hope! From what I've seen of his governmental efforts, incompetent boob may be apt.

And if wondering why Frei would willingly push an angle? It made him fairly rich and somewhat famous. That always seems to motivate people to do less than good things.

I'm always the poor idiot, it seems.

India provides some of that "info food" that people like Frei and many more feed on. And vice versa.

Pushing Trudeau love isn't my goal, it's keeping things real so a propaganda-fueled view of Trudeau isn't something that's spat back to whitewash the type of bullying and disrespect that India has served more than plenty of as far as Canada goes, which doesn't sit alone with China and Pakistan, do be sure, though no other nation generates as much Indian hate as the last two.

Certain types of public attacks are gaining intensity as India sees itself gaining power and influence, proportionate or not, while, in the background, several entities are constantly pumping out lists that are only partially accurate but always glorify India, and should one of those get the attention of any well-known personality, this makes the news.

The type of nationally applied control and pride that's injected, in combination with the hatred, "that's a bad mix," as some Germans may say.

Again, throw in Western neocons. the majority having access to luxury bunkers and willing to push things to a nuclear war, one senses, and I'd rather look like a fool for having made an effort than to make no effort at all... and still look like a fool.

•     •     •

I've changed my tune on China the day I stopped relying on what I had absorbed and decided to make an effort to understand the Chinese. And I wasn't kidding when I said that I've got India to thank for that.

But... India? Really?

If I were pointing to the Chinese or Russians as a people who are brewing the hate they stew in, few would question it and some would say: "Now? Can we nuke them now?"

But, like I said, there's a whole other facet to India that remains mostly unknown, it appears, but it's one that validates certain concerns when considering the present situation and the fact that a third-party could easily spark a conflict with China, if skilled and motivated.

Albeit, with Russia, China, and North Korea forming an alliance, sensing what's brewing and taking proactive steps that also send a message, this frustrating the West all the more as reality is hitting them a bit harder each day, their hegemonic doom looming closer.

Also, taking into consideration all US military efforts that we're aware of, I suppose I shouldn't worry about such Western efforts being successful?

No need to prove me wrong. That was a joke. (Maybe.)

•     •     •

Going back to that standards map that—albeit a faux pas—seems to have set things back 20 years judging by the articles and comments voiced across Indian media and X:

To us it's a silly thing, but to those submitted to constant hatred packaged as news, it's insulting to call it a "silly thing".

Case in point: In reaction to 'that map', MP Sanjay Raut, leader of the Shiv Sena party, told PM Modi on 29-Aug-2023, "If you have courage launch a surgical strike on China." (see below)

In part 1 of that series, I had highlighted one event (just one) for which, officials tell us, Modi spent less than ten minutes deliberating unconfirmed info before greenlighting a "surgical strike" in Pakistan that, according to what his Pakistani counterpart had divulged to Mike Pompeo, had come close to resulting in a nuclear reply from Islamabad.

Much is present to keep tensions in the region elevated and rising, and Afghanistan is continually nearing a complete collapse while Pakistan isn't far behind, the latter being the country that's the most hit by, and most vulnerable to, climate change. I won't get into that here except to say that I occasionally wonder whether the best thing would be to empty out the country now rather than later, dumping more billions into it in the meantime. Hard thing to hear, but they've been living weather conditions they know full well will kill far greater numbers should things get slightly worse, a direction that now gives all signs of being unavoidable.  

Hearing three Indian personalities discuss turbulent events in Pakistan, one of them pointing out that it was "supporters of Imran Khan" to then hear the group laugh and one of the three say, "Oh, Iram Khan just creating trouble again."  Like, holy crap, man! I found that quite disgusting, i really did. Then heard another host on another channel make a similar comment accusing Khan of creating more trouble.

And Pakistan's situation, per Chavda and several others? The PAK army is 'evil' and destroying the country and all may lead to a coup... "perhaps the best thing for India to do would be to absorb the country."

Good neighbours, I'm telling you.

That India's borders are among those that see the most number of civilians killed is none of my business.

Yes, there are dangerous elements, which I take into consideration, as mentioned in Part 1, but the border guards practise a "shoot first, never ask later" border policy that kills more citizens than terrorists.

Manipur went on for over three months before Modi finally reacted. Again, referring to part 1, was this the BJP's way of letting that tribal issue resolve itself before converting Muslims into non-citizens? i don't know, and the answer isn't as clear as the government would like the world to believe... as we mind our own business.

That being said, Jeffrey Sachs' certainty that all is smooth diplomacy if from India is far from reassuring or congruent to what's felt at the 'population' level, a growing number of them finding each tomorrow a bit more challenging while pockets of hardline nationalists are solidifying as violence against Muslims or other minorities sweeps through in waves. And "ten of thousands" of people weren't just displaced, apparently, they were made homeless as the slums that could be seen from the airport to the summit were bulldozed, to give a New Delhi a new sparkle for the event. Which cost them how much?

Arunachal Pradesh is so remote that someone heard from someone who heard from Rahul that China had invaded the area, but no one could confirm...

Take any segment on China that's in the Indian mainstream media and replace the mention of Chinese with Blacks or Jews and the whole world would be in an uproar. Here, what, why? Are we, again, meant to wait until things explode before it becomes proper to call hate "hate" and to say anything?!

Sachs and both Durans know full well, I'm sure, that neocons rarely miss spotting such opportunities, and that groupings of citizens with extremist tendencies they can ratchet up to 'psychotic' and point toward their enemies appears to be a hobby of theirs.

All leads me to believe that some have already identified a behavioral group present in India that may just be of use against China...

And it doesn't take many Rauts to see that the wrong spark at the wrong time could be deadly. Nor be a genius to know that some Westerners are bound to feel a need to irritate matters.

Same mentality gonna be applied? Indians may wipe out some Chinese with an even better ROI than what the Ukraine delivered through their slaughter, so what's my problem?

Addicts will be addicts, whether their drug is heroin or hegemony.

If the elites stuck to killing themselves only, that'd be a different story, but, until then...   

The Exclusionary Ways of Inclusion

No matter one's interpretation, India's handling of the G20 signifies that it's approaching BRICS as a "sideline" but not as an "option" that India is currently willing to dedicate itself to. That's fine, but the timing is bad, is what I do believe.

I fully understand India's reticence to peg a new currency to the renminbi, the same being what I'd think were the rupee or ruble or another nation's currency considered, this merely laying ground for a potentially similar situation as the one that's motivating a move away from the USD.

However, from free trade agreements in the region to the port situation in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, India always seems to approach such matters as if in an economic war against China, whereas, despite headlines of "beating China", it seems to me like China simply bowed out of Bangladesh. On the West, Gwadar sparks nothing but anger from New Delhi, who funded a Balochistan separatist group in Pakistan, along with the Americans, in order to make trouble for the Chinese development in Pakistan.

Two things stand out: The first is parallel developments and redundancy through competition, and the second is the following hypocrisy:

So, Canada supporting Sikh's right to free speech makes us a terrorist-supporting country but India's dealings with terrorists to meddle in neighbour's affairs and hurt China's development project because India had had unrealized plans to build a port in Iran that's now close to Pakistan's Gwadar... that kind of terrorist support is OK? 

Me so confused.

I think that that hint of personal you may have detected in part 3 is somewhat justified, no? 

That 'intensity' isn't what's demonstrated across all of India, per se, but a media landscape that continually pounds in a hatred of its neighbours into audiences... do I really have to point out what falls under the normal and expected effects of such an info diet?

Those who have their doubts, close yourself off from all other news networks for a week in order to accelerate the process, and watch only Indian news channels for that week, after which, let's talk about Indian diplomacy versus population while accounting for Westerners desperate to hold on to their power and comforts.

Could be I'm overly cynical and lack optimism in some areas of life. That could well be; I'll mull that over, too.

I've noticed a change since Modi came into office, and it's an India turning into a version of India that's far different than the one that's always been a draw. This is far from being the first time I voice having noticed a difference, what was once just a quirk expressed by a few spreading to a deep, nationally-shared hatred.

•     •     •

A tight control over one's image while bullying people with shouts of racism tends to have most believing all is happy-happy, joy-joy and any violence is the neighbour's fault.

One more reason why India is upset with Canada: with the onslaught of petty attacks and the type of pressure used for the Khalistan situation, some official set their foot down and accused the Indians of weaponizing Hinduphobia. An Op-Ed in the National Post delivered the same message, which is why they'll dig for anti-Trudeau material in The Sun rather than NP if they can do so.

Historically, India isn't outwardly aggressive, but there are indications that this is changing to some degree, and local acts of aggressions, such as surgical strikes, are finding increased justifications.

•     •     •

Now that we're nearing the section that deals less obliquely with the G20, I do want to reiterate the Indian perspective, which is one that betrays how the G-entity is to serve a national strategy aimed at giving India an edge over China; the screen grab on the right expresses it well.

India speaks of cooperation yet all external ties and developments are invariably presented as being a part of a power game wherein Pakistan is spat on and China always makes an appearance as some dreadful foe that's to be clearly conquered by their brilliance [insert more anti-China stuff here].

.I've also read a piece about there being some discontent as the budget that's given to promote the event was entirely used to promote India, a small G20 logo in the back. I've seen something that qualifies as what's referred to, but I haven't bothered to verify any aspects of budgets or any rules or mechanisms regarding adverts, nor did I hunt down any form of confirmation. What I will affirm is: I can understand why someone may have been left with that impression, as all that I saw Indian promo, certainly, and not G20 promo.

Not something I care all that much about, except for the fact that it reinforces what I see as India exploiting all it can to gain positional and transactional advantages over China. Which is also something I wouldn't normally care all that much about.

I could be wrong. I'm not selling my perspective and there's no guarantee offered on this one, but due to all that coalesced into the now that's presented us with an opportunity to drastically change our ways and to solidify the bonds that unite us, 'a wrong turn' is what best applies to that new path in spite of the good that's risen out of the bad.

And, no, blaming what's happening on the Russians... complaining that they're evil, I don't care to hear about Russians being evil, 'cause that makes you either very ignorant and brainwashed or a neocon.

The whole. Perhaps this is normal behaviour for many, but definitely not for me; there's something I find unsettling, which isn't something that's easily communicated nor will one perceive it unless dedicating some time to their news or cultural shows.

•     •     •

Indeed, the addition of the African Union, that's truly awesome.

I haven't given up hope yet.

But I haven't overdosed on optimism either.

The India-Middle-East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) 

I had read a caption that suggested as much whilst the G20 was still underway; it had truly peeved me.

Frankly, I'd initially hadn't expected much to come from it, this opinion also being the one that the vast majority of (serious) analysts and pundits who qualify as non-ideologues also voiced, seeing the clear intent behind the plan although I equally questioned whether any debate had been had over the “economics” applied to the economic corridor. 

Now, with the 'digital news', I see that they have. 

Keep in mind that only a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed, not an agreement, but with the latest, which I had simply absorbed as more ravings from the more vocal non-Klausists, I'll be honest, I'm not sure what to think, but India is, indeed, trying to push its own agenda by implementing a system that will force China to bend or be on their own, or so is the plan.

Of the IMEC, Jake Sullivan claimed that “the proposed network reflects Biden’s vision for far reaching investments that come from effective American leadership and a willingness to embrace other nations as partners,” and that “the enhanced infrastructure boost economic growth, help bring countries in the Middle East together and establish that region as a hub for economic activity instead of challenge, conflict, or crisis as it has been in recent history.”

Apparently, the project is said to be only "backed by the USA", but they've made it theirs. It's already starting off well...

Sullivan’s statement reflects a form of Western hypocrisy that, I must confess, I now have zero patience for. There’s something about the smugness that oozes out of the current White House crop, all of them dedicated ideologues and disinformationists, that just irritates me in ways I best not mention. (Blinken’s recent statement about the Russian SMO is another example, with even worse BS; that man really is scum-snot.)

Unless things magically changed without my knowledge, US infrastructures are beyond US interest and means is what observation is bound to lead one to conclude. I’m sure Flint has much to say in regard to the “effective” part, while the majority of nations seem to have a different take on the “embrace other nations as partners” part, many probably seeing more accuracy in “disposable tool” to describe their relationship with the US.

And you gotta love the part about the US aiming for ‘peace and love’ in the Middle East when the entire Biden Bunch is a post-Trump-disruption continuation of the establishment folks that did their all to keep the Middle East divided to the West’s benefit; Trump, on the other hand, did a mix of both uniting and royally pissing off the Middle East.

The type of approach that's proposed is what China’s BRI aims to accomplish, and because the West can’t counter it with their established methods is why the White House is trying to pass this off as their own gift of Freedom and Democracy to the world.

I’ve yet come across a valid assessment of this project that didn’t explicitly specify “counter China” and “keep dollar alive” as the obvious intent of such a plan given the US’ apparent lead on the matter and the manner in which it was presented. When these clowns repeat “unity” and barely mention dollars, you know there’s an ulterior motive.

However, "keep the dollar alive" should be reinterpreted properly, it seems, in concordance to the proposed CDBC.

There's a third reason I see, which is to impose tariffs on China to make them less competitive.

Signatory participants are the US, India—“the fifth largest economy in the world soon to be the third largest”—Saudi Arabia, UAE, and the European Union.

As far as Saudi Arabia goes, I suspect they're simply 'placating' all until something settles, but their loyalty lies primarily with Russia and China? UAE is in a bit of a tougher position with the US base, but I'm expecting something similar. Europe will do what the US says, but India seems motivated to make it happen. And they're calling it their "power play". 

While the Americans are seeing it as their plan, the Indians see it as Modi’s initiative, and the world coming under his leadership.

“It will not only change all global economics and trading systems but also rebalance geopolitics,” says the Indian The Print, this major outlet differing from the others by claiming that the plan is not to counter and contain China, as every country present was a friend of China's, but then adds that it’s “to challenge the Belt and Road and offer competition, and to let the world know that it has an option and that it doesn’t have to borrow from China and deal with its predatory practice and lose their assets if they can’t repay.”

Sigh.

Frankly, stupidly wasteful and redundant, resource and energy depleting development plans that are born out of hostility and a desire to dominate, not collaborate, that's what I truly see.

So not impressed. Period. And even more less impressed than the last time I'd said it.  

•     •     •

I’d mentioned hearing an Indian minister making such a claim on ANI TV; well, the same was repeated by India’s Finance Minister in the day prior to the summit (during, too), as she briefly outlined the “challenges” that the summit was to address.

That it's offered as a prime justification, not to counter China, but to challenge it, it's clear that India has absorbed gross lies about its neighbour and incorporated them into its domestic and foreign policy positions..

Not one shred of proof to that claim, and countries that served as the examples of such a practice all adamantly refuted it, assuring the world that airport or port, the Chinese hadn’t seized anything anywhere.

This deal has been in the making for two years and “it’s not from G20, it is from the sidelines of G20 but that’s how diplomacy works,” claims The Print, adding that this came to fruition following many discussions on the sidelines of many meetings and summits.

Yet, Modi made a formal announcement of it during his G20 formal address.

Whether it materializes or not, am I the only one who's feeling some form of betrayal?

WION had a splashy segment with is advertising it as “China’s BRI has a new rival” and, like The Print and the rest, hailing it as the major headline  that came out of the most perfect G20 summit, ever!

OK, so not only have Indians established themselves as dedicated hate spreaders, they're highly skilled at attracting it, too? For that's what I foresee once the news spreads wide and sinks in.

Lot's of hate and little success?

•     •     •

As I'd pointed out concerning Indian media being an "in" that the US was sure to exploit, an increase in Pentagon-approved talking points isn't the only thing I've noticed there being more of. 

I'm not sure if he made appearances going further back, but Fareed Zakaria seems to have fallen in love with India last spring, and appears more frequently on Indian TV lately, and always to inject US-serving opinions and push their agenda.

The Indians are cheering for Vivek Ramaswamy, of course, he's Hindu, and if you never thought you'd hear Zakaria sound real positive about a Republican candidate that's borrowing from Trump's playbook, think again..

Zakaria lays it out , listing all the 'evil' ways and conspiracies that Ramaswamy has been playing on, then laughs it off, saying he doesn't believe it of course, he's just a cunning and skilful politician.... though he's not Trump. And if the people can have the original, real thing, why wouldn't they go for Trump.

The India Today interview is both hilarious and somewhat maddening, and done with an Indian version of ‘Fredo’, it seems.

The Indian host is determined to have Zakaria say that India was destined to be the third largest economy in the near future, and rephrases his question in all sorts of ways, barely acknowledging Zakaria's lengthy replies as he fishes for his desired answer. Meanwhile, Zakaria is determined to paint China in a bad light and establish that the US was keen on being India’s best buds but couldn’t bring himself to confirm what the host hoped whilst having no qualms about saying all sorts of lies about China.

Here, you can tell from the host's face that he was not too happy to learn that India is in the same 'market returns' class as those others. He seemed to think that India was miles above the rest. 

Making such a claim, right, after the map issue had flared and Xi Jinping had already announced he was going to skip the summit, tell me that's not done just to stir trouble.

The Options are Bend Over or We Blow it All Up, OK?

Too much now tells us that it's no longer a matter of "if", but "when". 

The West is still driven by it's all-or-nothing obsession, clearly, determined to bring the world to the brink of a war. And with the massive war games planned in the Baltics, they wanna make sure they bring us there in the most irresponsible manner they can think of.

If taking down our leaders was in anyone's plans, now would be the time?

Air Force Times is privately owned but part of a family  “with publications serving all branches of the U.S. military, the global defense community, the U.S. federal government, and several special interest, defense-oriented industry sectors.” (Source)