Hi EZhil,
Firstly, the U.S isn't going to go quietly, the empire is sacrificing it's vassal states.
The West (under Trump) seems to be heading towards protectionism, tariffs and a trade war where the G7, (the collective west) and BRICS nations split into 2 distinctive trading blocks.
Who knows where that will end but were all going to be paying more as they duke it out and it might come to open conflict.

I used to believe that a multipolar world was possible. But few are ready for the responsibility. China definitely isn't. China should focus on improving itself before trying to improve the world. Being a leader can be a thankless task, but a necessary one.

Hi CM,
To better understand what the anti-west want, it's probably an idea to look at SCO, as compared to the Wests liberal interventionism, (i.e regime change operations)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
>>The SCO is the successor to the Shanghai Five, formed in 1996 between the People's Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan...

...The Shanghai Five group was created on 26 April 1996 when the heads of states of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan signed the Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions in Shanghai.

On 24 April 1997 the same countries signed the Treaty on Reduction of Military Forces in Border Regions in a meeting in Moscow, Russia.[6] On 20 May 1997 Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin signed a declaration on a "multipolar world".

Subsequent annual summits of the Shanghai Five group occurred in Almaty, Kazakhstan in 1998, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in 1999, and in Dushanbe, Tajikistan in 2000. At the Dushanbe summit, members agreed to "oppose intervention in other countries' internal affairs on the reason of 'humanitarianism' and 'protecting human rights;' and support the efforts of one another in safeguarding the five countries' national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and social stability." The Shanghai Five structure helped speed up the members' resolution of border disputes, agree on military deployments in border areas, and address security threats.<<

There is a difference between word and spirit as well as words and actions. I'd be interested in how China would respond to being pressure tested on these principles. Whether they would see the long or the short term benefits, whether they would honour the deals. China's history in the 20th century doesn't seem to support the case overall, that they do business in good faith. American's generally stab you in the face. This is one reason China can't be part of the western commonwealth, because it's all about Chinese sovereignty and it's shifting officials. Sadly we can't do much about the billion people in the Chinese matrix.

The world is ruled by strategists and not by statesmen. The communism in China does not care for humanism.Humanists will not go for a mighty army to fight against the so called enemies- the neighbouring countries.Let us understand that killing people whether they are nationals or neighbours is a barbaric activity. No humanist will do that. In India there was a king Ashoka by name who renounced war after seeing the devastation in one of his wars( kalinga war). Power mongering Pseudo communists cannot deliver the goods. It is the case with the other countries as well.
Only when politicians are saner individuals, there can be some semblance of order and peace on earth.
The various enactments made at the different conclaves will not be implemented by the selfish and corrupt rulers(politicians). Their survival is more important for these crooks than the welfare of people or their lives. No civilized country can engage in war invoking things like patriotism, nationalism, sovereignty etc. The earth belongs to every one who inhabits it. People of America voted for Trump in spite of his bad antecedent. The fact that only crooks get elected again again is a pointer to the the sorry state of affairs that prevail in the society. The society is plagued by fanaticism of nation, fundamentalism of religions and the like. Unless universal brotherhood is inculcated among people specially children in educational institutions I do not see any silver lining.

It sounds like that Ezhil has read the story but hasn't understood the lesson. Ashoka sounds like he may have come from the Bagavad Gita. The lesson of the Bagavad Gita is said to be that war is annihilation but you must still do your duty- a paradox. Some are unable to transcend paradoxes- they haven't developed the intellectual capacity. I suggest that Ezhil reads about paradoxes- start with Zeno's paradox that has less emotional content to distract from the lesson.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on paradoxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes