A large company planning to enter an unfamiliar market has to be careful. No lack of examples of failures, in some cases resulting in the demise of the entire company. Industrial and retail behemoths went under as they bled to death on ill conceived expansion plans. Even if the 'name' still exists, because the 'brand' itself did not suffer from the mistakes of the management, it is no longer free to decide on its own path towards profitability, as it is under orders from a former competitor which bought it, or a vague 'Holding Company', or it is the slave of its creditors, the 'Big Banks' and 'Blackrock Funds'.
Nothing is built to last forever, but abrupt changes are bound to hurt plenty if you are stuck in a company with no future after a series of serious mistakes by the management. The world witnessed the downfall of some 'Big Names' during the 'Credit Crisis'. Numerous people sounded the alarm in the run-up to that train-wreck, but nobody listened. And all of a sudden it was too late. Through their governments the tax-payers intervened as 'lender of last resort' to save the companies considered 'Too Big to Fail', while the tax-payers, with hindsight, would have preferred a government which would have prevented that demise, instead of encouraging it through 'lax rules' and 'stimulus'.
In the aftermath, the overriding sentiment was that 'the world' experienced a 'narrow escape'. Those who had been sounding the alarm before the actual implosion warned that there wouldn't be a 'next time', simply because there wouldn't be a 'lender of last resort' left to catch the companies which are 'Too Big to Fail', since the tax payer would not be able to carry the heavy load. They warned that taking on more debt would kill the 'EuroDollar'-system and they urged politicians to deflate that debt-balloon hanging overhead, before it would simply pop. But that is not a winning ticket for a politician.
There are always ways to deceive the public. Ways to post 'economic growth', bought with borrowed money, or presenting the growth in 'jobs' as a positive thing, in an environment where people need three different 'jobs' simply to make ends meet. Or, as I like to say on my Dutch blog: 'Slavery equals full employment', but few consider that a desirable outcome. Even the 'Slave Owners' get itchy, knowing from history that if they can no longer control the slaves with sticks and carrots, they are going to be hung from the highest trees, shot, or head-chopped. With their loved ones.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place, politicians in the Western hemisphere, controlling the 'Trade Currencies of Choice', couldn't offer continued economic growth to the people who elected them, while the generations they raised on promises of a lucrative future as 'Influencer', or a similar useless way to spend your valuable time, would not respond favourably to the announcement that 'lucrative' was sold out, and that 'Influencer' failed to produce the things human beings need to survive. The only way out, was war. Or, rather, conquering Russia and China, as well as other countries producing things, or in possession of large deposits of raw materials. Not necessarily with an occupational force, but through 'regime change' and armed conflicts with our proxies, teaching them to be 'good soldiers' in the army of the future, serving the Global Police-force, NATO, and making them offer their goodies to the pampered lot in the 'Collective West', in return for a smile and a pat on the back.
That plan failed.
Our leading politicians are either aware of the situation, and working on 'Plan B', or they are under the spell of this promise to enter this excitingly new 'market' of world dominance, and they insist on throwing the kitchen sink at it, since it has to succeed. The coffers of the company which employs them are no longer containing the money needed to pay for this expansion, and servicing outstanding debt is already a sincere headache, but 'Plan B' is not their cup of tea. 'Plan B' says that we have to cut our losses, return to the core of our business while saving costs, and save the company. Prevent it from going into bankruptcy, with our main competitors taking over, and calling the shots. I favour 'Plan B' myself. But I've warned that we would be stupid to attempt to 'regime change' countries and take their wealth, since that plan was unlikely to bear fruit, and was way too risky. It would explode in our faces. And it did. Not my fault. Don't blame the messenger!