All my investigations are free to read, thanks to the generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you value this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please
I’ve been told that, but I haven’t seen any kind of evidence supporting the theory.
So far the only governments outside of China that just so happen to be “reorienting” their geopolitical alignments are led by authoritarian conservative governments.
And how do you determine what’s a chip against the global hegemony, and not just a legal fiction used to further entrench conservative governments?
And yet you are ignoring the innate economic motivators leading to the shift in geopolitics to begin with?
You don’t know what you are supporting because you aren’t interested in the regional political history. I get what you want to support, but you’re blind to the motivations of the person who is pulling the strings.
No, just worried for friends in Tbilisi. Ivanishvili has been trying to put the last nail in the coffin for communist and socialist in Georgia for a long time, and allowing him to shut out opposition parties is probably going to be dangerous for them.
You keep using this word “authoritarian”. How are these countries any different from the average western capitalist country? What exactly is so much more “authoritarian” about them?
The example you’re discussing is the evidence. Reorientation does not mean fully reoriented. It means things are changing. An example that shows a changing relationship is evidence that relationships are changing. This remains true even if you don’t like the type of change or if things go back to the way they were.
At the moment we are still witnessing quantitative changes. Enough of those and we will see qualitative changes. The fact of quantitative change does not discount the fact of change i.e. reorientation.