B.t.w., on a more useless note, i’ve been playing with some possible acronyms for the past hour, without success, my favorite for now is « I(ran) B(razil)E(thiopia)A(rgentina)R(ussia) E(gypt)C(hina)E(mirates)S(audi arabia)I(ndia)S(outh africa) ».
An ecesis being the successful establishment of a plant/animal in a habitat that was barren previously.

Here’s some failed attempts :

  • scareee ibis
  • see, ibis care
  • erase ibices
  • i see bear, sic!
  • icee braises
  • ricee biases
  • baeee! Crisis!
  • raise, EECbis
  • And i’ll spare you even worse ones

Yeah, i’m not sure that they’ll be called by their acronym anymore, but who cares right ? They’ve made an alliance with the Middle-East, now include the two largest countries in South America, and even set a second foot in Africa with the ultra-famous Ethiopia(, one of the first christian countries, a communist history, one of the few never colonized, etc.) ! Well worth more than a single toast.
The world doesn’t have to be divided, it’s the west who refuses to live with such differences as socialism, islamism, or whatever survived the colonization, if this alliance enables diversity( in unity) then that’s a good thing.

    • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
      25·
      1 year ago

      The US-Saudi alliance is the keystone of the petrodollar, if Russia and China manage (with a little help from the US self-sabotaging by alienating most of the world with sanctions overreach and bad diplomacy that is perceived as disrespectful and bullying) to rip Saudi Arabia away from Washington, even just partly, that could snowball into the entire structure of US global financial dominance collapsing. All it takes is for the Saudis to start selling their oil in regional currencies instead of the dollar. Of course being in BRICS is not exclusive with having good ties to the US, at least on the surface, that’s why it’s so appealing to a lot of countries. After all, India was able to be recruited to the so-called “Quad” and be in BRICS at the same time. But it makes it much harder for the imperialists to drive wedges between its members and isolate individual countries that it decides to target.

    • soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.mlOP
      15·
      1 year ago

      If Saudi Arabia was that much allied with the u.s. it’d have accepted Israel and wouldn’t be criticized that much, and would also play its expected role against Iran, they also made peace with Yemen, i didn’t expected that. Don’t forget that S.Hussein was also our ally in the past, things change. As long as it’s good news for them and not bad news for the others then it’s a reason to rejoice i.m.h.o.
      Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, are the three most important countries in the Middle-East, with a historical influence going back farther than England’s influence in the European Union. The United Arab Emirates also have a lot of influence.
      I just hope that they won’t be sanctioned or something.

        • soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.mlOP
          07·
          1 year ago

          They’re possibly the country that is doing the most for islam(ism)(, i’m not sure but that’s quite possible), i’d “simp” for them any day(, though obviously less than towards the Almighty), sorry 🤷‍♂️.

            • soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.mlOP
              12·
              1 year ago

              Books, mosques, organizations, money, shared partnerships with other muslim countries, medias, …
              Even in non-religious domains, they’re making themselves&islam heard in sports(, even e-sports), and by hosting a lot of western businessmen, influencers, or other wealthy people, they’re also trying to export their own manufactured products and local research, i wouldn’t underestimate their potential.
              (And if they invest in desalination(, with solar panels,) and other terraforming technologies they can even grow( back) forests in deserts i believe/suppose ^(not sure they need it, but that’d be a cool sight))

          • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
            8·
            1 year ago

            It’s probably not my business to weigh in on this subject but this is a pretty weird take considering that Saudi Arabia is most notorious for spreading Wahhabism which is an ideology basically created by the CIA for the purpose of countering the spread of socialism. I would say Iran has a much more positive and much more clearly anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist influence in religious matters. But that’s just my opinion.

                • soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.mlOP
                  11·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m truly ashamed not to have read any book on this subject, and i still can’t defend the point of view of the south, but even the north is wrong overall. If they want to be united, it would benefit both sides if that was done in diversity, and there’s no reason for bordering countries to feel somehow threatened by an expansion of influence of an enemy if it’s your ally, and if his(/her/…) expansion of influence is your expansion of influence.
                  My initial argument was that the cause for the civil war isn’t primarily Saudi Arabia, they came afterwards and i’m glad that this war has stopped before claiming even more victims.
                  However, i’d also like to point out that, without needing to really grasp the history of that country(, i’m obviously biased towards the leftists), there’s a war because both sides haven’t found a way to be united in diversity. And also that, e.g., the expansion of Iran wouldn’t be a threat among allies, they always held an important part among muslims, Egypt and the Arabic Peninsula as well(, every muslim know that sunnis and shias can obviously live together). The so-called expansion of Iran in Yemen wouldn’t mean much if its expansion already reached Morocco, and Saudi Arabia’s influence already reached Indonesia ^(, there wouldn’t be a point in saying “i’m closer to this country than you”, such proximities would come and go without consequences). Who cares if our laws and our point of view aren’t imposed in the countries we’re united with, we’ll learn from each other and lead with our example, at least we’ll keep our own differences(, if our arguments ^(propaganda) beat theirs [1]), it’s not that bad if they keep their own differences as well.
                  I.d.k., is it rational to claim that every single conflict would have been solved if both sides agreed to be united in diversity ?

                  [1] : If a strong enough group decides to establish a community inside a country, their will and number could force the government to allow them more diversity(, but sill in unity, with a common army, a set of common laws, some common medias, celebrations, languages, projects, enterprises, associations, and other ways to ensure a lasting friendship). There wouldn’t be any territorial/economic/demographic/… loss, separatism would be rendered impossible by the country, and forbidden by international laws, as would be not allowing most possible demands of differences.
                  The problem, however, could be that allowing the spreading of “othernesses” in our territory(, from inside or outside,) may result in the disparition of our own differences/peculiarities. Since i can’t imagine the ideals of capitalism spreading like that ^(, at least not by the workers themselves), but only ideologies that i support, such spreading would represent the popular progression of ideas towards something better/‘more just/virtuous/desirable/…’, as long as it’s natural.
                  As long as a (part of a )country agrees to be united, it should be allowed to become almost as different as it could ever want, even if it contaminates or is contaminated by the rest, as long as this contamination stays natural.
                  Capitalists-owned countries would refuse to unite with socialists countries because they’re afraid of being unable to convince the ignorant workers that it’s against their interests, it’s always suspicious when a side doesn’t feel confident enough to defend its position(, and in this case causes wars to avoid ever having to).

                  Since i’m already off-topic, i’d also add that the election of a law or president ^(for representative republics) should be canceled if the results promised/predicted aren’t obtained.

      • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
        7·
        1 year ago

        It gets a lot harder to sanction these countries if they join a trade alliance. Not impossible. They’ll still need dollars for a good while yet. But it becomes more challenging and the would-be sanctioned states become more resistant to it.

    • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
      10·
      1 year ago

      Agreed. That said, anyone trying to create an alliance against / an alternative to NATO and the IMF, after decades of US destroying every opposition to its hegemony, will mostly find allies that are far from glamorous

    • aleshasmiles@lemmygrad.ml
      8·
      1 year ago

      It’s not about ideology. It’s about providing an alternative to the hegemon. Seeing those who are usually imperialist running dogs now beginning to choose the alternative is a win.

    • KiG V2@lemmygrad.ml
      5·
      1 year ago

      I think the Saudi’s status as an ally of the US is increasingly contentious. Things have been less-than-friendly over the past few years. Them beginning to make peace with Iran, showing interest outside of the West and outside of the petrodollar, not so readily adhering to the US’s demands following Ukraine…

      It’s hard to say if they just see the US as a leperous beast killing itself and all who stick by its side, or if this is just the whims of the winds, but to me I see Saudi/US relations continuing to deteriorate. Them joining BRICS will surely been seen as another crypto-intolerable slight to the Empire.

    • Pili@lemmygrad.ml
      31·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I’m surprised to see Argentina on the list. But isn’t India fascist also?