caesymore:
Boom Dig_it!!


Ukraine is a funny country, You voted for a comedian. What a costly joke

Gracious3105:
A comedian bold enough not to run away from the world third most powerful man even when the opportunity was offered. This is just like a small Hebrew David, a sheep keeper without military experience and armoury standing up against a Goliath, the giant and military commander of the Philistines and you know how it ended .
You guys said Kyiv would be overrun in two week but we are heading towards two years and the comedian is showing the spy chief that he owes Kyiv & it cannot be penetrated. Do you know that the former president of Ukraine actually ran out of the country to Russia when the people protested against him in 2014? That's who Russia wants as president (a puppet) but Ukrainian got a comedian with King David's heart. Beat it!

FORHII:
Unfortunately, Ukraine can never be the same again. Thanks to US.

caesymore:



David did not hide under military during the war, he took the bull by the horn.

Never you in your life compare a failure like Zelensky to David, Lives have been lost with irreparable damages everywhere and you are here in Nigeria spewing rubbish from your mouth.
why fight a war you can never win, going to and fro for help like a chick that lost its mum, that's stupid bold Be it weeks or years Kyiv has known no peace so far to what gain please Mr. moderator

rottennaija:
The G7 must accept that it cannot run the world
American hegemony and the group’s economic dominance are now history
MARTIN WOLF

“Goodbye G7, hello G20.” That was the headline on an article in The Economist on the first summit of the Group of 20 in Washington in 2008 which argued that this represented “a decisive shift in the old order”. Today, hopes of a co-operative global economic order, which reached their zenith at the G20’s London summit of April 2009, have evaporated. Yet it is hardly a case of “Goodbye G20, hello G7”. The earlier world of G7 domination is even more remote than that of G20 co-operation. Neither global co-operation nor western domination look feasible. What might follow? Alas, “division” might be one answer and “anarchy” another.

That is not what the communiqué from the meeting of G7 heads of government in Hiroshima suggests. It is breathtakingly comprehensive. It covers: Ukraine; disarmament and non-proliferation; the Indo-Pacific region; the global economy; climate change; the environment; energy, including clean energy; economic resilience and economic security; trade; food security; health; labour; education; digital; science and technology; gender; human rights, refugees, migration and democracy; terrorism, violent extremism and transnational organised crime; and relations with China, Afghanistan and Iran (among other countries).

At 19,000 words, this reads like a manifesto for a world government. In contrast, the communiqué of the London G20 summit in April 2009 was just over 3,000 words. This comparison is unfair, given the focus at that time on the economic crisis. But an unfocused wish list cannot be useful: when everything is a priority, nothing is.

Moreover, both the “unipolar” moment of the US and the economic dominance of the G7 are history. True, the latter is still the most powerful and cohesive economic bloc in the world. It continues, for example, to produce all the world’s leading reserve currencies. Yet, between 2000 and 2023, its share in global output (at purchasing power) will have fallen from 44 to 30 per cent, while that of all high-income countries will have fallen from 57 to 41 per cent. Meanwhile, China’s share will have risen from 7 to 19 per cent. China is now an economic superpower. Via its Belt and Road Initiative it has become a huge investor in (and creditor of) developing countries, though, predictably, it is having to deal with the consequent bad debts so familiar to G7 countries. For some emerging and developing countries, China is a more important economic partner than the G7: Brazil is one example. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva may have attended the G7, but he cannot sensibly ignore China’s heft.

The G7 are also reaching out to others: their meeting in Japan included India, Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam, Australia and South Korea. But 19 countries have apparently applied to join the Brics, which already include Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. When Jim O’Neill invented the idea of the Brics back in 2001, he thought this would be an economically relevant category. I thought the Brics would be about just China and India. Economically, that was right. But the Brics now seem to be on the way to being a relevant worldwide grouping. Clearly, what brings its members together is the desire not to be dependent on the whims of the US and its close allies, who have dominated the world for the past two centuries. How long, after all, can (or, for that matter, should) the G7, with 10 per cent of the world’s population, continue to do so?

Sometimes, one simply has to adjust to reality. Leave aside for the moment the political goals of G7 members, which rightly include the need to preserve democracy at home and defend its frontiers — today, above all, in Ukraine. This is indeed the west’s fight. But it is unlikely ever to be that of the world, most of which have other, more pressing problems and concerns. It was good that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attended the summit. But the west alone will determine Ukraine’s survival.

If we turn to economics, it is also a good thing that the notion of decoupling, a damaging nonsense, has turned instead into one of “de-risking”. If the latter can be transformed into focused and rational policymaking, that would be even better. But it will be much harder to do this than many now seem to imagine. It makes sense to diversify supplies of energy and vital raw materials and components. But, to take a salient example, just diversifying the supply of advanced chips from Taiwan will be really hard.


An even bigger issue is how the global economy is to be managed. Are the IMF and World Bank to be bastions of G7 power in a world increasingly divided? If so, how and when are they going to get the new resources they need to deal with today’s challenges? How, too, will they co-ordinate with organisations that China and its allies are creating? Would it not be better to admit reality and adjust the quotas and shares, to recognise the huge shifts in economic power in the world? China is not going to disappear. Why should we not allow it a bigger say in return for full participation in debt negotiations? Similarly, why should we not reignite the World Trade Organization, in return for China’s recognition that it can no longer expect to be treated as a developing country?

Beyond all this, we must recognise that any talk of “de-risking” that does not focus on the two biggest threats we face — those of war and climate — is to strain at gnats, while swallowing camels. Yes, the G7 must defend its values and its interests. But it cannot run the world, even though the world’s fate will also be that of its members. A path to co-operation must be found, once again.

martin.wolf@ft.com

Follow Martin Wolf with myFT and on Twitter

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2023. All rights reserved.Reuse this content(opens in new window)CommentsJump to comments section

Gracious3105:
Ukraine didn't provoke Russia rather Russia started the war inside Ukraine just because they wanted their land! What is Ukraine offense that made Russia invade Ukraine and what exactly are they looking for?
I want a sincere response from you!

BidenDTrounced:

Displaced Palestinians should be resettled in Bakhmut..there's plenty space there and it's actually better for them.

ParasiteWest:
There cannot be a right government until the West is put in their place. (Russia, China and the majority of the world has done a wonderful job) The interest of the West in developing countries is to make sure the developing countries remain impoverished so the citizens of those countries would find migration to the West for 'greener pastures' attractive where they're then exploited and exposed to [/b]modern day slavery.[/b] Their intent is to keep the West as a 'paradise' in the minds of the manipulated public. The West influenced the politics of Africa directly/indirectly. The right govt will get the 'Gaddafi treatment'

BidenDTrounced:
"The indigenous people of the Americas adopted enslaved people in recognition of thier fight against the colonial masters and slavery (in other words, descendants of slaves are not colonial occupiers, they're welcomed by the indigenous peoples)
The indigenous peoples also intermarried with black people. It's no surprise that majority of Black women from the Caribbean have better hair and are much more attractive than Nigerian women.
North America ought to be decolonized, the West can carve out a Liberia out of the remnants of Ukraine. That would solve the problem of living space for these cruel westerners. It's safe to conclude that Nazism (subjugation/domination/colonization) is a deeply rooted and practised Western ideology. It is evident in thier culture and way of life. (It reminds me of the saying of my favourite girlfriend..sinners blaming others for sinning differently..Britain, a brutal colonial master itself didn't want to be colonized by Germany)."




Thank God for Russia and China...we 4 don see shege!