Middle East Conflict Megathread (Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc)

[Phoenicaea]

..there is not a discussion which is not about a false here, where has the school gone, that should teach the ability to acknowledge?

there is no way to counter little politics propaganda (may be Assad, Putin, and so on) with an incapable populace. the rest is small things

[Socialist Czechia]

I say, same as in every Civil War, all sides committes acts of immense abhorrence. I say, probably, government could use chemicals, for example, but it's up to you if you think Assad personally ordered it or it was used by stupid commaner without authorization. In some cases, it could easily be done by the 'rebels' from Al-Qaeda(aka Nusra, I don't care how they call themselves this week), like the extremely suspicious last case.

But the Western medias always desperately wants 'The Villain' or to say who's the 'good guys'.

Problem is, there are never 'good guys' in Civil War.
Croatia ruled by fascist Tudjman, who deserved bullet, no presidency, was signed as 'good guys', too, although he and his pals were no better than Serbians Milosevic or Karadzic.

If NATO wanted justice, then only option was land invasion, direct military occupation of Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia.
Same as now. Invade and do the dirty work, or don't interfere, because you are making it worse.

Britain and France, remember, were the ones who messed with the place: not Russians, not even Americans (so much).
Blame Englishmen and Frenchmen, equally for all the mess in Middle East in last 100 years here. All the way from Egypt to Iran and beyond.

[Fahran]

I say, same as in every Civil War, all sides committes acts of immense abhorrence. I say, probably, government could use chemicals, for example, but it's up to you if you think Assad personally ordered it or it was used by stupid commaner without authorization. In some cases, it could easily be done by the 'rebels' from Al-Qaeda(aka Nusra, I don't care how they call themselves this week), like the extremely suspicious last case.

Well at least you're acknowledging that the Baathist aren't blameless. Once you accept that Assad ordered it, we can perhaps discuss whether that would change your position on the conflict. According to most ethical paradigms, Assad would not be the correct choice in this instance. Utilitarianism could perhaps rationalize it, but only if it narrowly predicted the possible or even probable outcomes.

But the Western medias always desperately wants 'The Villain' or to say who's the 'good guys'.

Assad is the logical villain within the liberal paradigm that prevails in the West. It is not so much that they need a villain, but merely that the realities combined with their worldviews result in the inevitable creation of multiple villains in Syria.

Problem is, there are never 'good guys' in Civil War.

Perhaps not, but there are sides that certain people will find more palatable than others. The SDF is quite clearly the most palatable option to most educated liberals living in the West. A couple edgy contrarians support Assad while claiming political realism, but rather few of them really comprehend who he is, what he stands for, or why this conflict is happening.

Same as now. Invade and do the dirty work, or don't interfere, because you are making it worse.

I'm not certain how you're defining worse here. Other than supporting Assad, it's impossible to understand your values in regard to this conflict. Why should Assad be kept? Secularism? There are other options. Order? There were and are other options. Even another dictator.

Britain and France, remember, were the ones who messed with the place: not Russians, not even Americans (so much).
Blame Englishmen and Frenchmen, equally for all the mess in Middle East in last 100 years here. All the way from Egypt to Iran and beyond.

I blame the Ottomans as well. And the Arabs who have control now. The Hashemites ought to have retained their power in perpetuity since monarchy at least appears to have held the countries together. All that's left now are the withdrawals from the short-lived intoxicants of vague idealistic nationalism and, worse, even vaguer idealistic socialism. They discarded an institution and a tradition for an abstraction. The party has ended and the people are left semi-comatose in a room plastered with congealed booze and reeking of tobacco, clutching their throbbing heads with pruned fingers.

[The East Marches II]

I say, same as in every Civil War, all sides committes acts of immense abhorrence. I say, probably, government could use chemicals, for example, but it's up to you if you think Assad personally ordered it or it was used by stupid commaner without authorization. In some cases, it could easily be done by the 'rebels' from Al-Qaeda(aka Nusra, I don't care how they call themselves this week), like the extremely suspicious last case.

Well at least you're acknowledging that the Baathist aren't blameless. Once you accept that Assad ordered it, we can perhaps discuss whether that would change your position on the conflict. According to most ethical paradigms, Assad would not be the correct choice in this instance. Utilitarianism could perhaps rationalize it, but only if narrowly predicted the possible or even probable outcomes.

But the Western medias always desperately wants 'The Villain' or to say who's the 'good guys'.

Assad is the logical villain within the liberal paradigm that prevails in the West. It is not so much that they need a villain, but merely that the realities combined with their worldviews result in the inevitable creation of multiple villains in Syria.

Problem is, there are never 'good guys' in Civil War.

Perhaps not, but there are sides that certain people will find more palatable than others. The SDF is quite clearly the most palatable option to most educated liberals living in the West. A couple edgy contrarians support Assad while claiming political realism, but rather few of them really comprehend who he is, what he stands for, or why this conflict is happening.

Same as now. Invade and do the dirty work, or don't interfere, because you are making it worse.

I'm not certain how you're defining worse here. Other than supporting Assad, it's impossible to understand your values in regard to this conflict. Why should Assad be kept? Secularism? There are other options. Order? There were and are other options. Even another dictator.

Britain and France, remember, were the ones who messed with the place: not Russians, not even Americans (so much).
Blame Englishmen and Frenchmen, equally for all the mess in Middle East in last 100 years here. All the way from Egypt to Iran and beyond.

I blame the Ottomans as well. And the Arabs who have control now. The Hashemites ought to have retained their power in perpetuity since monarchy at least appears to have held the countries together. All that's left now are the withdrawals from the short-lived intoxicant of vague idealistic nationalism and, worse, even vaguer idealistic socialism. They discarded an institution and a tradition for an abstraction.

The only crime the Ottomans committed was permitting Arabs to live in the Empire instead of expelling them tbh

[Fahran]

The only crime the Ottomans committed was permitting Arabs to live in the Empire instead of expelling them tbh

You know I like certain aspects of Arab culture. Why do you do this to me?

The Bedouins have good aesthetics and good aesthetics should lead to virtuous politics, but, no, Wahhabism. Wahhabism and left-wing, warlord-based Arab nationalism everywhere. It's weird because Aflaq could've been a good boy.

[Socialist Czechia]

The only crime the Ottomans committed was permitting Arabs to live in the Empire instead of expelling them tbh

Well, since Ottoman Sultans were legit Caliphs, all Muslims not obeying them were super-heretics. So almost all Arabs total takfirs.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The only crime the Ottomans committed was permitting Arabs to live in the Empire instead of expelling them tbh

Well, since Ottoman Sultans were legit Caliphs, all Muslims not obeying them were super-heretics. So almost all Arabs total takfirs.

That depends on what you mean by "not obeying".

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Well, since Ottoman Sultans were legit Caliphs, all Muslims not obeying them were super-heretics. So almost all Arabs total takfirs.

That depends on what you mean by "not obeying".

Also depends on what you mean by "legit caliphs".

[Socialist Czechia]

Well, since Ottoman Sultans were legit Caliphs, all Muslims not obeying them were super-heretics. So almost all Arabs total takfirs.

That depends on what you mean by "not obeying".

Not slaughtering Brits/Frenchies on sight whenever Caliph commands for whatever reason.

[Kubumba Tribe]

That depends on what you mean by "not obeying".

Not slaughtering Brits/Frenchies on sight whenever Caliph commands for whatever reason.

Depends on "whatever reason" is. If it's a just cause and the Brits/Frenchies are soldiers fighting against the Khilafah, then the Khalifah is doing the right thing. If "whatever reason" is "becuz I'm the khalifah, I can do whatever I want", said Khalifah shouldn't have that title.
Also, the latter action would make the Khalifah a heretic, not the Muslim citizens.

[Socialist Czechia]

Not slaughtering Brits/Frenchies on sight whenever Caliph commands for whatever reason.

Depends on "whatever reason" is. If it's a just cause and the Brits/Frenchies are soldiers fighting against the Khilafah, then the Khalifah is doing the right thing. If "whatever reason" is "becuz I'm the khalifah, I can do whatever I want", said Khalifah shouldn't have that title.
Also, the latter action would make the Khalifah a heretic, not the Muslim citizens.

Well, Brits directly payed Arabs in gold and deceived them anyway, afterwards, for turncoating.

That was not very honorable and so they were punished properly as them being treacherous jackals. Sunni sultan replaced as master by christian kingdom with state religion and overwhelmingly catholic republic.

well done, anti-ottoman Arabs

[The East Marches II]

Depends on "whatever reason" is. If it's a just cause and the Brits/Frenchies are soldiers fighting against the Khilafah, then the Khalifah is doing the right thing. If "whatever reason" is "becuz I'm the khalifah, I can do whatever I want", said Khalifah shouldn't have that title.
Also, the latter action would make the Khalifah a heretic, not the Muslim citizens.

Well, Brits directly payed Arabs in gold and deceived them anyway, afterwards, for turncoating.

That was not very honorable and so they were punished properly as them being treacherous jackals. Sunni sultan replaced as master by christian kingdom with state religion and overwhelmingly catholic republic.

well done, anti-ottoman Arabs

And then they got Israel as a final reward for their treachery :^)

[Fahran]

And then they got Israel as a final reward for their treachery :^)

Herzl was a good boy.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

The only crime the Ottomans committed was permitting Arabs to live in the Empire instead of expelling them tbh

Well, since Ottoman Sultans were legit Caliphs, all Muslims not obeying them were super-heretics. So almost all Arabs total takfirs.

I heard Indonesia has a large support base that supports Caliphate. I am for one, in support of the Islamic-based government. Whether or not it can be applicable without the cons of democratic government (corruptions is the biggest factor, as well as restrictions on free speech).

[Fahran]

I heard Indonesia has a large support base that supports Caliphate.

Approximately one in five Indonesian students support the establishment of a caliphate. This probably does not bode well for Indonesian society in the long-term, at least not from the perspective of the West or people who value secularism.

Source.

I am for one, in support of the Islamic-based government. Whether or not it can be applicable without the cons of democratic government (corruptions is the biggest factor, as well as restrictions on free speech).

If history is anything to go by, corruption and restrictions on free speech would be ubiquitous under a caliphate. Multiple religious scholars and poets were executed by individual caliphs and sultans under them for saying disagreeable things or for violating arbitrary edicts. In some chronicles, one might cite the treatment of the Barmakids.

[Socialist Czechia]

Mu'tazila glorious revival would solve it all in best way.

They were like: "Intellectual debates about Islam are non-negotiable."

[Kubumba Tribe]

Mu'tazila glorious revival would solve it all in best way.

They were like: "Intellectual debates about Islam are non-negotiable."

That was kufr

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Mu'tazila glorious revival would solve it all in best way.

They were like: "Intellectual debates about Islam are non-negotiable."

That was kufr

Is that takfir I smell?

[Shofercia]

Pretty sure the links demonstrate that Libya was turned from a country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa, into a hell hole, and considering that Islamists were most certainly involved... As far as your second claim, erm, so why didn't that happen in Iraq? You had a legitimate, democratically-elected government, in Iraq, and then ISIS showed up and took over huge parts of Iraq from said democratically-elected government. The solution to war, rape, and slavery, the one that acts works, tends not to involve the US bombing random countries that pose no real threat to the US.

War does not have a positive impact on human development, regardless of how worthwhile the motivations behind it are. It's the stability that comes after the final lull in violence that decides whether a rebellion or revolution had a positive impact on a nation. In Libya's case, it should have been an improvement. They obtained a democratically elected government and were making dramatic progress in transforming society for the better.

That said, I'll reiterate that Islamist ideology, while present in Libya, isn't the driving force behind the present conflict, certainly not to the extent that it was in Syria. It's primarily a struggle over electoral legitimacy between two governments and a plethora of tribal militias who are settling old feuds. After the uprising against Qaddafi, there was no conceivable way of avoiding this short of keeping Qaddafi in power by force. He wasn't ever going to win the war. That said, I concur. It would have been preferable not to waste the energy, money, or man-power dabbling in Libya's internal squabbles.

France, like Russia, needs to understand that its traditional sphere of influence is going to melt away amid modernity. At the moment, linguistic and economic ties are all that can survive beyond tomorrow.

In Libya's case, it wasn't an improvement. Human Rights consist of two categories, Social Rights and Civil Rights. Without Social Rights, Civil Rights are pointless, as you can simply buy the vote and elect Darth Vader as mayor. Think I'm joking? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... ts-no-joke

Over the past week, as Ukraine held local elections across most of the country, Darth Vader emerged as a direct threat to democracy. Darth Mykolaiovych Vader appeared on the ballot for mayor of Odessa , and the Darth Vader bloc ran for seats on councils in the Odessa region. The Sith lord campaigned in costume, often accompanied by stormtroopers on the roof of a van blaring “The Imperial March” and blasting pyrotechnics. Traditional and new media broadcast quirky click-bait stories of a Soviet-era Lenin monument converted into a statue of Darth Vader, Darth Vader’s election campaign, and the detention of Chewbacca (who was working with Vader).

But the real story is how the fake Vader represents the actual dark side of Ukrainian contemporary politics: election fraud and manipulation. It is not a coincidence that most of this tale happens in Odessa, Ukraine’s lovely, corrupt port city, and traditional capital of humor. Odessa politics have been dirty historically. “Star Wars” mania at election time is a part of this corruption. The city featured a contentious fight for mayor, pitting the incumbent Gennadiy Trukhanov against Sasha Borovik, who is an ally of the current governor and former Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili; Eduard Hurvits, a former mayor; Sergey Kivalov, the former director of the Ukrainian Central Electoral Commission; and a cast of also-rans and so-called “technical candidates.”

Want Darth Vader as mayor of Odessa? I can make that happen for a couple million bucks. The reason is quite simple: people need housing, heat during winter, healthcare, clean water, food, non-leaky roofs, and so on. If a candidate's party provides that stuff for the people, he can support kitten rape and still be elected. In the case of Libya, we saw a massive destruction of Social Rights; as a result, the neutrals shifted to a leader that's been providing them for his faction, General Haftar, who might end up becoming a military dictator. Would the Libyans care? Not most of them, they just want their Social Rights back.

Oh, the UN issued a strongly worded letter to rapists and murderers. Oh no. The KLA must be so scared of a strongly worded letter. I'm sure that they quaked in their boots, as they sold Serb organs. And in what World was the US not directly responsible? When the Serbs tried to fight, the US bombed Belgrade, their capital, primarily a civilian cities - leaving the Serbs with two "Humanitarian" choices - have their capital city destroyed or have their population in Kosovo - ethnically cleansed. All in the name of "Human Rights". Why don't you ask the Kosovo Serbs what they feel about the US "Humanitarian Intervention" in Kosovo.

The Serbs were not blameless in that brouhaha. As I recall, they were the ones who in many instances initiated the ethnic cleansing. NATO intervention mitigated what would have been a greater humanitarian crisis and managed to effect the partition of Yugoslavia into more viable nation-states throughout the nineties. At some point, population exchanges would have needed to occur in that environment, as lamentable as it is. I actually wouldn't be opposed to something similar in Syria, minus the violence and organ-snatching. A Sunni state, an Alawi state, and a Kurdish state. Or a federal state that better represents such groups.

I was referring to the 1999 Bombing of Belgrade. The incident that was the trigger for the bombing, the so-called "Racak Massacre" didn't stand up in an actual Court of Law, specifically during Milosevic's trial at the ECHR. Milosevic proved that there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not Racak was a massacre, and then died, thus humiliating the intervention and causing lots of butthurt among Neoliberals. As far as Syria is concerned - where would you place the Sunni State? The current division between the Kurds and Assad is clear - the Euphrates. How does a Sunni State insert itself into the region?

Multiple pollsters claimed that Clinton would win. It's interesting how all of these claims come right after Assad scores, or just as he's about to score a victory against the insurgents that the US is totally not supporting.

He appears to have scored his most recent victory by deploying chemical weapons and forcing the rebels to abandon their positions. That's the problem. He's done this several times before as well, as much as his supporters may grasp at straws to deny it. Mind you, I'm not in favor of a full-scale intervention. Assad is going to win. However, restraining him is certainly a worthwhile goal.

Even if he uses chemical weapons, why would he use them at the very end? Wouldn't it make more sense to use them throughout the campaign and the battle? If my guys are about to take your positions, I'd use cluster bombs, not chemical weapons, because then my guys don't have to wait until the chemical weapons dissipate - they can just take your positions.

I do have a problem with imposing a no fly zone, as that was what led to the bombing of Libya, and turning the country with the highest HDI in Africa, into a shithole country.

The civil war in general did that.

Civil Wars don't magically prolong themselves without foreign intervention. The Civil War would've been over by now, Ghadaffi would've won, and the HDI would've been largely restored, had there been no Western Intervention.

Interestingly enough, some of the very same Liberals who cheered for the bombing campaign, suddenly got butthurt at Trump's name calling. Apparently for that lot, it's better to turn a country into a shithole, than to actually call it a shithole.

I've been ambivalent about both conflicts in spite of my more enthusiastic support for the interventions in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia. Qaddafi wasn't going to win the civil war. That became apparent soon after his forces were rebelled from several vital rebel strongholds. The no fly-zone just minimized casualties and sped the conflict towards its conclusion. My complaint is that the nation wasn't stabilized by reliable and strong support for the duly elected government.

Actually, he was. The holdouts were a few strongholds, which he could've blockaded and cut power and water to said strongholds. How long would they have lasted? Worse case scenario - he lets 10% of Libya go. Best case scenario - he wins. Take a look at how quickly Haftar snagged a chunk of Libya. He's essentially following Khadaffi's policies, and the only difference is that he hated Khadaffi because Khadaffi back stabbed him during the Toyota War. He wants Khadaffi's policies back in Libya, and he's winning.

You support bombing Syria, and then talk about minimizing civilian casualties. Do you really fail to grasp the disconnect?

Bombing a military installation and killing a dozen soldiers to discourage the government from dropping chemical weapons on cities and killing three to four times as many. That's all I've proposed. It's a symbolic gesture more so than anything. Bolstering the strength of forces that Assad will have to compromise with eventually shouldn't prolong the war either.

Symbolism doesn't work in modern warfare, outside of Hollywood.

So it's cool to wipe out countries, as long as their population is less than 300,000? Originally you attempted to argue from a percentile basis. Since I tore that argument to shreds, you're now trying to argue from an absolute basis.

You didn't tear that argument to shreds at all. I mentioned that twenty percent of the population had been uprooted and then mentioned the concrete numbers. In the case of Kosovo, they could be repatriated to a Serbian nation-state across the border. In Syria, the situation is different.

The anti-Serb campaign in Kosovo was vicious. There's a reason that the Serbs in North Kosovo don't want any part of the Pristina Administration, no matter what concessions are made; because Thaci's Regime was so vicious in expelling Serbs, they lost all trust among most Serbs. And instead of letting North Kosovo secede, they're talking about the territorial integrity of a region created by self-determination. What the actual fuck? Either you have self-determination or you don't. You can't claim the right to self-determination as an oppressed minority, and then turn around and claim territorial integrity against the minority that you oppressed.

So if X orders the paramilitary to burn someone, and then condemn the burning, is that cool? Is that acceptable? Street brawls happen. And yet, I haven't seen people being burned alive as a result of street brawls, in massive numbers. It's rather hilarious how my entire point is that Human Rights are simply being used as a PR stunt, by everyone, and here you are, doing just that. "It was only 300,000 Serbs, look at all of those Syrians, they're in the millions!"

That wasn't my only argument. Do you have proof that the Ukrainian government ordered a mob to burn ethnic Russians alive? The local police certainly made a strong attempt to prevent the atrocity and did manage to save some people.

Ordered the mob? Do you think that agencies that burn people get official Government orders? No Government would be that fucking stupid, as to order the burning of people. So of course there's no proof of an actual order. Have you proof of the Southern States ordering the KKK to enact the Mississippi Plan?

The direct UN quote was: “worst humanitarian crisis in the world”

It's a lot more than just 5,000 civilian casualties, as another source that I cited showed that more than 50,000 children die from starvation in Yemen every year. More than 50,000 children.

And not all as a direct result of the Saudi-imposed blockade, which I quite ardently oppose.

Certainly not all - just an extremely big part of it. If Assad did something similar, you'd be calling for regime change. But with the Saudis, it's something that you simply "quite ardently oppose" rather than calling for regime change.

So none. Gotcha.

War is the continuation of politics by other means.

How does that address my point?

I've addressed the Human Rights abuses in Syria by proposing to end the war and divide Syria along the Euphrates, giving a substantial amount of land to the Kurds. You're the one who demands we minimize civilian casualties by dropping more bombs. Also, to have the UN call your country's actions the "worst humanitarian crisis in the World" - that takes some Belgian Congo style sadism.

Is it a good thing to have chemical weapons and indiscriminate bombings of civilian centers? Is that conducive to human rights and human development in a country? And, again, starvation is not quite the same situation. I've already explained that Yemen's situation wasn't peachy before the war began. The destruction of infrastructure and the demographic crisis created by the Houthis initiating the war would have thrown Yemen into a state of famine alone. The Saudi actions have merely exacerbated the existing crisis and other avenues remain available for addressing it. With Assad, we've already given him multiple ultimatums that have been ignored.

It's a bad thing to use chemical weapons, or depleted uranium when bombing cities, or to use starvation as a weapon. Also, what demographic crisis did the Houthis create? Did they have too many babies for Yemen to handle?

Hey, I'm all for letting the people in Syria vote for their leadership. I'm all for Referendums. Can we hold one in Ukraine too?

That depends. Are we holding a referendum to partition the country for the benefit of its neighbor, to change leadership, or to grant ethnic minorities increased autonomy? I'm wholly in favor of the last two, but I'm on the fence with the first one at the moment because the logical implications would not bode well for global peace.

Here's the thing about Referendums - if you do it, you have to do all three. You can't just say "I want option B and C on the Referendum, but not A." You either have all options, or you don't. California, my state, is a Referendum State. We have some propositions that are fucking retarded and have no way of passing. We still allow them a path to the ballot. For instance, there was a proposition to split California into six states according to randomly drawn lines. It failed. But people had a chance to campaign for it, and might've ended up voting on it, probably against it.

So you have to decide if you're pro or anti Democracy. If you want B & C on the ballot - will you also place A on the ballot? Remember, it's the people who vote.

[Shofercia]

Condemnation's ok. Sanctions - depends on the situation. Bombing humans to promote Human Rights? That's my issue.

It's quite a limited bombing in this instance. By no means do I favor a massive involvement in Syria, especially not when such involvement benefits Islamist groups. I would like to see Assad grant concessions to the more moderate elements of the FSA, to the SDF, and to disenfranchised rural Sunnis though. I'd also prefer that chemical weapons not be used against civilians. The issue is that Assad has such a strong hand at the moment that he has no incentive to bother negotiating with anyone aside from the SDF. He should've allowed elections earlier and this all could've been avoided.

But why should he deal with someone other than the SDF? The others have been supported from abroad, arguably illegally, and definitely illegally under Syrian Law, they started the Civil War, (at least from Assad's perspective,) they lost, and now he has to grant them concessions?

An unwilling population... riiight. Is that why Chechens are returning to Chechnya, because they're unwilling to be ruled by Kadyrov's group?

War is not often conducive to a stable demography. I'm not certain that Chechnya can be reliably maintained as a Russian state in the foreseeable future, though I will grant that Putin managed the situation more deftly than one might have thought. Mind you, Kadyrov is still corrupt and rather nasty in his policies, but he does appear to have made some progress towards stability.

Kadyrov might be nasty, but how's he corrupt?

Actually - you're wrong. My main issue with the Baltics is that their Governments are not adhering to the Minority Rights parts of Human Rights treaties that they signed.

I'm not too familiar with the human rights of ethnic minorities in the Baltic region, though I'm aware that Russian had been emphasized as the principal language of the region under the czars and soviets in much the same way that German had prior to that, and often at the expensive of native Baltic languages.

That's irrelevant. The Baltic Governments voluntarily, without any coercive pressure from Russia, signed the European Human Rights Treaties. Now they have to abide by them. Or they can give Russian the same status as the language has in Germany, as well as the states of New York and California. That Baltics used those treaties to invite businesses to jump start their economy. If they want to reverse course, they should be able to explain to their citizens, why businesses are now actively boycotting them.

They cannot abide by the treaties that they voluntarily signed when inviting businesses, and then pretend that said treaties don't exist anymore when it suits their needs. Eventually businesses and people will notice. And then they'll be economically fucked. I'm just asking for them to enforce treaties that they voluntarily signed, to bring business investments to their countries. This shouldn't even be remotely controversial. If the ECHR wasn't a bureaucratic shitpit, I'd be perfectly fine with the ECHR enforcing these laws, just streamline it or something.

Not sure what Putin's issue is, but I doubt that the Baltics would benefit if Zyuganov or even Medvedev came to power. Central Asia, with the exception of Turkmenistan, is very pro-Russian, and the latter's neutral. It'll be interesting to see if Turkmenistan will sacrifice neutrality to be a part of the new silk road, or enter an era of isolation, but that's for them to decide.

While the Central Asian nations do appear more cordial towards Russia, I believe that the economic strength of China and eventually India might change the power dynamics of the region immensely in the long-term. Hence why Russia would benefit from developing its soft power a bit more. The economy in particular strikes me as problematic, and I'm not certain Putin has done enough to invest in Russia's long-term future. He's popular, but Russia still have a lot of internal problems.

China and India are both in the SCO, as is Pakistan, as are most Central Asian countries. I doubt that China or India would risk their SCO status to piss off Russia in a relatively minor Central Asian Republic. Same can be said for Russia.

And now we move to Ukraine. Russia can simply forbid any transfer of funds from Russia to Ukraine, cut off all raw materials to Ukraine, and cut off all trade with Ukraine, and watch what that'll do to Ukraine's economy.

That's not exactly soft power either. I'm also not certain such a policy would benefit Russia if the objective was to preserve some measure of influence beyond its borders. Would you agree at least that such influence has been waning since the nineties by and large? Putin has reimposed it to an extent, but that strikes me as a short-term accomplishment that might not persist for the next two to three decades.

The influence has been waning since the 1980s. It's hard to put a specific date on it, but the disastrous Operation Ring was the turning point. Quite a bit of influence was lost in the 1990s, and the early 2000s. As far as the economic collapse - here's the thing: Ukraine's Economy is controlled by Oligarchs for their own enrichment. Russia's is controlled by Siloviks, who are tied to the land. Ukraine's Oligarchs aren't. So if you're investing in Russia, and you increase the equity in the land without pissing off any major players, you can make an amazing return on investment. Russia has clear rules of engagement. Ukraine doesn't. There's no point in working to improve Ukraine, as long as the Oligarchs, be they pro-Russian, pro-American, or pro-shitheads, remain in power. They will always put themselves first and foremost, and spit on everyone else.

Investing in most civilized places has clear cut rules of engagement. And yeah, in most places, the bosses place themselves first, but they follow the rules. So if you follow the rules, you should be fine. No such arrangement exists in Ukraine. The locals are powerless. The Oligarchs will just grab, and grab, and grab. Until the entire power structure is demolished, there's no honest way to make a return on investment in Ukraine. Add to this the demographic crisis, and the recent, rather negative, healthcare reforms, (Ukraine's shifting from a European Healthcare System to an American Healthcare System, cue laugh track,) and at this point, I'm not even sure if Russia wants Ukraine with the current ruling class intact.

What most fail to realize, is that Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe. (I don't consider Kosovo a country.) It is the only post Soviet country that failed to upgrade most of its infrastructure from the Soviet Days. It's in a demographic tail spin. When Crimeans were offered to be a part of Russia, they jumped at the opportunity. There are two ways to solve the Ukraine Crisis: through blood, or through Referendums. I'm a fan of the latter.

According to some surveys, Russia and Moldova are running a steep competition for that title. I'm aware that Russia and Ukraine actually experienced decreasing HDI scores in the aftermath of the USSR's disintegration, but other former satellites appear to have prospered. East Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria especially have markedly improved since disentangling from Russian hegemony.

There's such a thing as the Corruption Perception Index, which is different than actual corruption. Moldova made the list of most corrupt countries in Europe, because they failed to secure their bank funds. Whoops. Don't use local banks when investing in Moldova. Russia has major corruption issues, but, as I've said before, there are clear rules of engagement.

Moldova and Ukraine followed the path of Liberalization, how'd that work out? After the fall of the USSR, Ukraine was slightly better off than Belarus; they were equal, but Ukraine had the coastline.

Those represent two examples out of many, and, in many cases, liberalization and autonomy haven't been absolute.

Erm, with the exception of the Baltic States, nearly all other SSRs follow a clear trend: the more pro-Russian they are, the better off they are economically. The other exception to the rule is Turkmenistan, solely because they get a ton of income from Natural Gas.

In some region, like the Caucasus, spheres of influence are needed. A war between Armenia and Azerbaijan led to the Invasion of Russia through Dagestan.

The Caucasus, much like the Balkans, is a mess. I mostly blame it on them being nestled between multiple territorial powers and the mountainous terrain keeping centralized states somewhat weak until modern times.

That's true, and the other issue is that there's no strong armed forces willing to enforce peace. They did quite well between the early 1950s and late 1970s, when the Red Army would slap any troublemaker silly.

I like how intense this discussion is, and yet neither one of us is actually insulting each other. That's very unique on NSG

I'm glad that you're keeping an open mind, and if I said something that seems personal and was bad - that's my mistake.

Of course. I don't know how to do things any other way. I appreciate your civility as well.

You're fine. Out of curiosity, you're Russian, right? I've always assumed as much, but I've never really bothered to ask. My family has very distant ties to Russia.

Yep - I was born in the USSR. Moved to the US for college. Stuck around for a job. Capitalism works, unless it's applied to healthcare. Then you need something like the Swiss Version. Interestingly enough, I dated a Pashto girl in college. That was an interesting experience. Wasn't a long relationship, but I definitely learned a lot, and was humbled a bit. I'm sure she was too, although I doubt she'll admit it

[MERIZoC]

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/indepth/features/palestinians-face-explosive-bullets-dangerous-gas-bombs-180501091514736.html?__twitter_impression=true

Israel is using explosive bullets and chemical weapons on protesters

[Painisia]

Do Iranians miss the times when the Shah was leader? Especially now when there`s high disdain for the Islamic government in Iran. And what do you Muslims think of Ayatollah Khomeini?

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Do Iranians miss the times when the Shah was leader? Especially now when there`s high disdain for the Islamic government in Iran. And what do you Muslims think of Ayatollah Khomeini?

No. God no. They're all horrible but out of the three recent Iranian leaders, it is:
1. Khomeini
2. Khamenei
3. Pahlavi

The Shah was a brutal puppet dictator who attempted to silence Islam in order to please the West and in the process, attacked Iranian culture, ordered his secret police to kill thousands of Iranians, established a one-party state, and whose erratic behavior towards the end of his reign included firing all of the palace staff virtually without warning.

As for what Muslims think of Khomeini, I'm no longer Muslim so my opinion probably doesn't matter much about that particular question.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/indepth/features/palestinians-face-explosive-bullets-dangerous-gas-bombs-180501091514736.html?__twitter_impression=true

Israel is using explosive bullets and chemical weapons on protesters

Good fucking God. Can't wait to see how people defend this one.

[Fahran]

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/indepth/features/palestinians-face-explosive-bullets-dangerous-gas-bombs-180501091514736.html?__twitter_impression=true

Israel is using explosive bullets and chemical weapons on protesters

Good fucking God. Can't wait to see how people defend this one.

I'm a Zionist and I have no intention of defending it. This goes into the vast list of stupid, horrible things the IDF and Likud government have allowed and/or encouraged. I actually feel bad for literal Hamas supporters.