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

[Thanatttynia]

1) Call me evil and inhuman all you want, but you're the one with a naive worldview. People are basically violent. Nations made up of people are basically violent. Moving past that and into a new age in which diplomatic routes are explored first before military action or war has been a great human achievement. Perfect? Of course not, but I wouldn't like to live in a world in which that wasn't mainstream thinking (read: literally any time pre-~100 years ago.)

Oh goodie, the Fukuyama lie again. The diplomatists have nothing to do with the threat of nuclear annihilation. The nativity of your worldview is that you are under the mistaken belief that the 90s has continued successfully and we're all living in peaceful liberal democracies (or soon to be them). That isn't the case.

? You’ve misunderstood me. I said nothing to imply I believe the entirety of the world is made up of peaceful liberal democracies; it blatantly isn’t. If you really refuse to accept that we live in a time in which diplomatic routes are the preferred option for solving international crises then I don’t know what I could say to you to make you change your mind other than look around you? In the past, major wars were frequent. They no longer take place at the same frequency.

2) Well aware of all those conflicts. As I said, my use of the phrase 'world peace' was to refer to what would probably more properly be called Pax Americana - the period we have enjoyed in the West of peace and prosperity relative to what we would have enjoyed had we been alive at any other point in history. I am grateful for that.

Then perhaps you should have said Pax Americana instead of world peace.

:———) I should have been clearer. My mistake.

3) It is, it is, it is.

How? How is it different than Bush deciding Iraq has been canceled, or Clinton throwing cruise missles from the Balkans to Mesopotamia, or Bush and Columbia. Perhaps I need to bring up Reagan! It isn't new, it isn't unique. Its par for the course. "It is, it is" is meaningless drivel because you can't summon a real argument to throw back.

It’s different to those examples in that I can’t remember a time that the US has been so starkly opposed to the majority opinion of this many of its traditional international partners. To me, this move in the wider context of Trump’s similarly pigheaded foreign policy signals that the US is taking a step back from the leadership role it has played since the end of WWII, at least under this administration. That worries me since I sincerely believe that that role is going to be taken up by someone, and I would personally rather it be the US than any other nation.

4) I can appreciate this. I recognise that if it were my home being blown up etc., I might have a different view on the matter, hence why I said 'we... in the West' - I was careful to couch that language in terms personal to myself. Just because I am in the West (and I am extremely lucky in that regard) that does not mean I can't or don't care about people in other countries. I do. But on another point of human nature: people are basically selfish. As a thought experiment - would you rather your family be killed or the family of someone else be killed? I don't like putting it into such stark terms, and we should of course work towards a world in which no families had to be killed, but you're going to choose to save your own family.

Please, though, don't misinterpret my views; I'm not a hawk, I'm not a warmonger, I don't feed on human misery. I'm surprised by the tone in your comment, to be honest, since I don't think I necessarily said anything to indicate that I did. A world without war would be brilliant, but it's not going to happen. Treaties like this which decrease the likelihood of (nuclear) war breaking out are the best option we currently have, and denigrating them or laughing at them falling apart is, again, stupid. They protect you from annihilation.

It is not a treaty, its an executive agreement with a middle eastern country. Not to mention, we've broken nuclear treaties and so have the Ivans without starting wars. Again more pearl clutching over nothing. You only couched it after the fact and in a mealy mouthed way. As for the insane assumption that Trump is threatening this so called Western peace by bullying another Middle Eastern country, I can only laugh. First you disconnect the ME and "Western" peace but now when it suits you, you connect them. You've earned that tone by spouting ideas that are both 20 years out of date and responsible for the largest chain of strategic failures the west has seen since the run up to World War 2.

Semantics. In common parlance you can call this a treaty.

Yes, nuclear treaties have been broken before. I didn’t claim that this action will lead to a a war, I said that it would ‘endanger world peace’, as I believe it has done. International diplomacy is difficult. It takes time and effort. It’s reliant on goodwill and faith in the other parties. This administration has shown none of that, and in the process of tearing up this important ‘executive agreement’, has endangered the stability of the region and therefore the wider world peace Pax Americana. Actions on this scale have consequences beyond their immediate vicinity.

Spare me, also, the indignation and mock outrage that there are still people who believe in the international order. We have no better alternative than diplomacy. Diplomacy prevents violence. I see little difference between your bleeding-heart anti-Americanism and the hawkish Islamophobic ‘nuke now negotiate later’ foreign policy outlook favoured by some of those on the right in the US. Both paths will lead to war. I needn’t have to remind you that nuclear war is, in real terms, worse than non-nuclear war because it could quite literally be the end of all human life.

My point that you missed in your unnecessary rush to accuse me of being a dirty neo-whatever imperialist pig-dog is that looking down on diplomacy and the faulty but ultimately good system we live under like this is extremely stupid. It is to thank for us being able to have this discussion (which is what I would like this to remain.)

[The East Marches II]

? You’ve misunderstood me. I said nothing to imply I believe the entirety of the world is made up of peaceful liberal democracies; it blatantly isn’t. If you really refuse to accept that we live in a time in which diplomatic routes are the preferred option for solving international crises then I don’t know what I could say to you to make you change your mind other than look around you? In the past, major wars were frequent. They no longer take place at the same frequency.

Diplomacy isn't though. That was briefly, for perhaps a span of 20 years at the end of the Cold War. Diplomacy hasn't stopped a serious crisis for the last ten years. The Ukraine agreements were a joke, the Syria ceasefires too. Unless you are considering bouts of appeasement diplomacy.

:———) I should have been clearer. My mistake.

Happens to the best of us

It’s different to those examples in that I can’t remember a time that the US has been so starkly opposed to the majority opinion of this many of its traditional international partners. To me, this move in the wider context of Trump’s similarly pigheaded foreign policy signals that the US is taking a step back from the leadership role it has played since the end of WWII, at least under this administration. That worries me since I sincerely believe that that role is going to be taken up by someone, and I would personally rather it be the US than any other nation.

Iraq? You don't remember that. Grenada too comes to mind when we defied these so called partners. At any rate, our traditional international partners no longer have relevance outside of the UK. How many armies can they raise, what airforces do they have, and where is their will to do anything other than pay bribes and raise diplomatic protests? It isn't that the US has taken a step back, its that the entire West is asleep at the helm while the US continues to do what it usually does.

Semantics. In common parlance you can call this a treaty.

Yes, nuclear treaties have been broken before. I didn’t claim that this action will lead to a a war, I said that it would ‘endanger world peace’, as I believe it has done. International diplomacy is difficult. It takes time and effort. It’s reliant on goodwill and faith in the other parties. This administration has shown none of that, and in the process of tearing up this important ‘executive agreement’, has endangered the stability of the region and therefore the wider world peace Pax Americana. Actions on this scale have consequences beyond their immediate vicinity.

Spare me, also, the indignation and mock outrage that there are still people who believe in the international order. We have no better alternative than diplomacy. Diplomacy prevents violence. I see little difference between your bleeding-heart anti-Americanism and the hawkish Islamophobic ‘nuke now negotiate later’ foreign policy outlook favoured by some of those on the right in the US. Both paths will lead to war. I needn’t have to remind you that nuclear war is, in real terms, worse than non-nuclear war because it could quite literally be the end of all human life.

My point that you missed in your unnecessary rush to accuse me of being a dirty neo-whatever imperialist pig-dog is that looking down on diplomacy and the faulty but ultimately good system we live under like this is extremely stupid. It is to thank for us being able to have this discussion (which is what I would like this to remain.)

Its not semantics, in the US a treaty is agreed to by the Senate as well. Otherwise, its just a piece of paper that can be torn up whenever it suits us. As for the claims of good will and faith. Where are those to be found in Moscow and Beijing? Indeed, even in Berlin during Obama's time, we found precious little of any of that. The path that leads to war is disarmament and catatonic states. We're back in that mode already. The next world war is likely assured. The US isn't big enough on its own far apart from its internal problems, the Europeans are asleep, unwilling to defend themselves and content to pay bribes. Really only the Japanese have put anymore skin in the game, and the British. The system of diplomacy is dead. It's death throes were the Obama administration. We let the other countries, China and Russia catch up. They used Pax Americana to their advantage, they used the naivety of those so willing to pretend the old system is alive and well, and the US is only willing to maintain the status quo rather than aggressively contain the threat as it did in the Cold War. We are the equivalent of debating in the Non-intervention League during the Spanish Civil War while Adolf and Mussolini run rampant.

[New Bradenia]

The Syrian Democrats defeat the Syrian Government and became true allies of NATO, USA and Israel with Libya, Egypt and Tunisia (They were in the "Arab Spring")

Syrian Democrats? Who are you referring to? The SDF? Lol good luck. That coalition would fall apart the moment they defeated the government. Not to mention that they would still have to defeat the Turkish-backed forces and Daesh.

I meant YPG

[Thanatttynia]

? You’ve misunderstood me. I said nothing to imply I believe the entirety of the world is made up of peaceful liberal democracies; it blatantly isn’t. If you really refuse to accept that we live in a time in which diplomatic routes are the preferred option for solving international crises then I don’t know what I could say to you to make you change your mind other than look around you? In the past, major wars were frequent. They no longer take place at the same frequency.

Diplomacy isn't though. That was briefly, for perhaps a span of 20 years at the end of the Cold War. Diplomacy hasn't stopped a serious crisis for the last ten years. The Ukraine agreements were a joke, the Syria ceasefires too. Unless you are considering bouts of appeasement diplomacy.

Well, yes, the efficacy of these agreements has been wildly variable. But, generally, for every crisis that isn’t stopped by diplomatic efforts, there’s the potential for ten more that might otherwise have happened had diplomatic agreements not been in place. I agree what’s been going on in Syria and Ukraine is shameful and a clear example of the limitations of diplomatic agreements if there’s nothing concrete to back the words up with. I don’t necessarily see the failure in these two examples (and there are more) as a reason to pull out of other international agreements.

It’s different to those examples in that I can’t remember a time that the US has been so starkly opposed to the majority opinion of this many of its traditional international partners. To me, this move in the wider context of Trump’s similarly pigheaded foreign policy signals that the US is taking a step back from the leadership role it has played since the end of WWII, at least under this administration. That worries me since I sincerely believe that that role is going to be taken up by someone, and I would personally rather it be the US than any other nation.

Iraq? You don't remember that. Grenada too comes to mind when we defied these so called partners. At any rate, our traditional international partners no longer have relevance outside of the UK. How many armies can they raise, what airforces do they have, and where is their will to do anything other than pay bribes and raise diplomatic protests? It isn't that the US has taken a step back, its that the entire West is asleep at the helm while the US continues to do what it usually does.

There was broader international support for the Iraq War than for this. Grenada I hadn’t thought of. I concede it may be the closest example, although there was (public) UK support for that and there is not on this. It’s also significant that this is a deal, not a military intervention, and actions on deals generally don’t provoke such a strong reaction as interventions/invasions might.

Semantics. In common parlance you can call this a treaty.

Yes, nuclear treaties have been broken before. I didn’t claim that this action will lead to a a war, I said that it would ‘endanger world peace’, as I believe it has done. International diplomacy is difficult. It takes time and effort. It’s reliant on goodwill and faith in the other parties. This administration has shown none of that, and in the process of tearing up this important ‘executive agreement’, has endangered the stability of the region and therefore the wider world peace Pax Americana. Actions on this scale have consequences beyond their immediate vicinity.

Spare me, also, the indignation and mock outrage that there are still people who believe in the international order. We have no better alternative than diplomacy. Diplomacy prevents violence. I see little difference between your bleeding-heart anti-Americanism and the hawkish Islamophobic ‘nuke now negotiate later’ foreign policy outlook favoured by some of those on the right in the US. Both paths will lead to war. I needn’t have to remind you that nuclear war is, in real terms, worse than non-nuclear war because it could quite literally be the end of all human life.

My point that you missed in your unnecessary rush to accuse me of being a dirty neo-whatever imperialist pig-dog is that looking down on diplomacy and the faulty but ultimately good system we live under like this is extremely stupid. It is to thank for us being able to have this discussion (which is what I would like this to remain.)

Its not semantics, in the US a treaty is agreed to by the Senate as well. Otherwise, its just a piece of paper that can be torn up whenever it suits us. As for the claims of good will and faith. Where are those to be found in Moscow and Beijing? Indeed, even in Berlin during Obama's time, we found precious little of any of that. The path that leads to war is disarmament and catatonic states. We're back in that mode already. The next world war is likely assured. The US isn't big enough on its own far apart from its internal problems, the Europeans are asleep, unwilling to defend themselves and content to pay bribes. Really only the Japanese have put anymore skin in the game, and the British. The system of diplomacy is dead. It's death throes were the Obama administration. We let the other countries, China and Russia catch up. They used Pax Americana to their advantage, they used the naivety of those so willing to pretend the old system is alive and well, and the US is only willing to maintain the status quo rather than aggressively contain the threat as it did in the Cold War. We are the equivalent of debating in the Non-intervention League during the Spanish Civil War while Adolf and Mussolini run rampant.

Apologies, I’m not American so didn’t know that, again I should have been clearer.

I agree we are living closer to the edge now than we have ever been since the height of the Cold War, but I think your outlook is a bit too pessimistic. Goodwill and faith do still exist between countries, but these things are easily undermined. Ultimately, I don’t believe anyone in power in any government around the world wants a nuclear war, and people will do what they can to prevent something like that from happening. I think the sensible course from now on can only be to focus on diplomacy, since whilst it’s important to remember its limits (appeasement; run-up to WWII), it’s equally important not to forget that militarisation and an unwillingness to negotiate within set boundaries also played a major role in the run-up to to other large conflicts (e.g. WWI, to a lesser extent WWII)

I’m not necessarily opposed to military action in and of itself but it needs to be justifiable and contained if it’s to be successful at maintaining peace and stability as opposed to creating strife and instability. Besides, a number of examples (the election of Trump on a promise of non-interventionism and protectionism; the wide support for Sanders for the Democratic ticket on a similar non-interventionist platform; absolute indifference to Corbyn’s anti-Western foreign policy in the UK etc.) show that even if all those tests were met, public support simply does not exist for most meaningful military action, hence no action in Syria. Iraq poisoned the entire narrative, which is unfortunate.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Syrian Democrats? Who are you referring to? The SDF? Lol good luck. That coalition would fall apart the moment they defeated the government. Not to mention that they would still have to defeat the Turkish-backed forces and Daesh.

I meant YPG

So, the SDF. My commentary still stands. Not to mention that them defeating said Turkish-backed rebels would mean fighting Turkey, a NATO member. True allies of NATO, though, amirite?

[Socialist Czechia]

Isn't first terrorist nuclear attack just a matter of time, anyway?

People tend to overreact around nukes. Just look how many nukes detonated since 1945 to this day. Artificial virus designed to kill as many people as possible in short time, would probably kill billions, while limited nuclear warfare would kill probably less people.
I am just trying to do the cold calculations, as well: is it even efficient to send invasion army and secure everything in oldschool way (vietnam, afghanistan, iraq...)? Or use few precise tactical nuclear strikes against main bases and government centers, which can, ironically, in the end, cost less lives?
Then again, it's hard to say, what is 'limited', when it comes to nukes.

[Minoa]

People tend to overreact around nukes. Just look how many nukes detonated since 1945 to this day. Artificial virus designed to kill as many people as possible in short time, would probably kill billions, while limited nuclear warfare would kill probably less people.

To add on to this, I think it is unhelpful for anyone to try and speculate that some setback will lead to nuclear war or World War III.

Such attempts at trying to convince people that war will happen, because of some setback, may discourage hope and determination to prevent such war through diplomacy.

[Fahran]

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?

I understand your point and you're largely correct.

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.

Again, you're not incorrect.

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.

This has largely come as a result of the more ideological aspects of the revolution. Had Qaddafi loyalists not been excluded from government, there would have been a better chance of a smooth transition. Had the West supported stability in the aftermath of Qaddafi's toppling, this wouldn't have been a problem either. There are still a plethora of options available. The problem is that our governments have been vacillating on such matters for years. A bit of decisiveness could make a lot of difference. With regard to Haftar, he's been one of the creators of the present crisis and appears intent on amassing power at the expense of the nation as a whole. When he creates order, it is to his personal benefit. There are few if any devoted national servants in Libya. Much the worse for them.

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.

Given the conviction of Karadzic, it's probable that Milosevic would have been found guilty of at least a number of the allegations against him, even if the Racak Massacre couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable, largely due to the restrictions placed on the Finnish team by the Serbian government. We've wandered a bit from our initial point of contention though, no?

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?

You could employ the mountainous terrain that separates the Alawite-dominated portion of the country as a natural boundary. It might even be plausible to include some Sunni-dominated regions to the east as well, at least where Assad loyalists predominate. The present borders aren't organic or reflective of the ethnic/religious demographics. A degree of autonomy might well ease some of the social tensions and drive Sunnis away from supporting the FSA, al-Nusra, the Southern Front, etc. Of course, Assad could also just govern better.

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.

He's been using them for awhile now according to most international sources. Really, the only people attempting to deny it are those in Assad's camp and the Russians, who have made a number of eccentric claims about everyone from the UK to the Syrian opposition of late. And, mind you, I believe Putin has been one of the better leaders Russia has had recently in terms of reestablishing Russian hard-power and accomplishing foreign policy objectives. That doesn't mean that honesty is valued, however. Assad likely did use chemical weapons and likely did indiscriminately bomb heavily populated areas. You get to decide if that's justified or not.

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.

I'm skeptical that Qaddafi could have won. Even prior to the imposition of the no-fly zone, high-level government officials and some military officers had begun to defect and Qaddafi gave a speech vowing to die a martyr rather than step down from power. Approximately half the military and around two hundred thousand volunteers, mostly native to Libya, fought on the rebel side by the time the conflict ended. They outnumbered Qaddafi loyalists almost five-to-one. International intervention just sped things along to their natural conclusion.

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.

Again, Qaddafi loyalists were severely outnumbered even prior to the no-fly zone and had been repelled from multiple rebel strongholds. Once they realized that they could win the war, the writing was on the wall. A dictator can retain power only by means of love or fear, and Qaddafi had lost both.

Haftar's a good deal stronger at present than either democratic government, I'll grant you that. I'm not familiar with his policies other than his staunch opposition to Islamists and his criticism of the GNC government, which he attempted to topple ineffectually. He's winning around Benghazi, but from what I've read he has mixed reactions everywhere else. He's also aging and might not have enough time to piece the country together before he dies.

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

Nonsense. It conveys the message that violating laws that your country agreed to doesn't go without a response. Eventually, if the outcry becomes large enough and Assad has to wonder whether he'll have NATO dropping into his backyard, he might behave.

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.

Do you propose partitioning the Balkans on a street-by-street basis then? They've all behaved like ethnic-cleansing barbarians in the recent past and clearly can't get along within common borders. We have to draw the line somewhere and Kosovo is itself a clearly defined, historical region within the Balkans. The intervention arguably had a moderating effect, even if it cost us a whole bunch of resources for little tangible gain and resulted in certain groups suffering as opposed to a larger number of other groups. And, yes, I'm upset that we even have to have conversations about murdering people for their ethnicity or religion.

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?

Given the police officers actively attempted to halt the Ukrainian hyper-nationalists and managed to save several Russian protesters, I'd take that as evidence that the government wasn't a hundred percent on board with burning people alive. Otherwise, those officers were ignoring orders and deserve some measure of praise for it.

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.

Assad has done that in certain regions and cities. Ghouta for instance.

How does that address my point?

Political victories matter in war, however small they might be.

It's a bad thing to use chemical weapons, or depleted uranium when bombing cities, or to use starvation as a weapon.

I'd say we agree on this much, and on the fact that war should be a last-ditch option.

Also, what demographic crisis did the Houthis create? Did they have too many babies for Yemen to handle?

They initiated the war. Wars tend to have a negative effect on the stomachs of ordinary citizens. Oddly enough, their political program does hold some appeal once you remove the random Antisemitism and Anti-Americanism.

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.

I'm pro-democracy with stipulations is probably the best answer I can give. I don't think it's conducive o stability to have random regions seceding all the time, whether that be Crimea or Azawad. I like the idea of self-determination, of course, but the Russian people already have a nation-state. This comes off as Russia trying to throw its weight around against weaker countries.

[Socialist Czechia]

Such attempts at trying to convince people that war will happen, because of some setback, may discourage hope and determination to prevent such war through diplomacy.

I believe, that there's always a point, when war is unavoidable and impossible to prevent.

But many people will refuse to accept it to the last minute.

[Fahran]

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?

To prevent a future conflict principally. Content people are less inclined to rebel than those who have nothing to lose and the trickle of emigrants from Syria does not bode well for future economic development. He could go about it in a multitude of ways, especially given that he does retain some support from certain Sunni groups. Alleviating poverty in the rural countryside for instance would address a major grievance that has festered for years.

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

Source.

Russia itself remains a hotbed of corruption in Europe, and is arguably more corrupt than Ukraine or Moldova. It's not especially surprising that the state formerly dominated by warlords has become a similar bastion of corruption, especially given the degree of power wielded by Kadyrov and oligarchs more generally.

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.

So countries should be compelled by international pressure to abide by treaties they voluntarily enter? I've pretty much been advocating for that this entire time.

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.

I'm not certain how China and India exercising soft power would risk their SCO status. I'm not proposing that they'd invade Siberia or anything. I'm merely stating that power is likely to shift from Moscow to Beijing and New Delhi as time passes. Washington will experience a similar trend as well eventually. In point of fact, Beijing has been gaining an increasing amount of soft power for decades.

Glorious description of economic landscapes in Russia and Ukraine.

Interesting.

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.

Essentially, the circumstances in Ukraine are so terrible that many would prefer Russian governance? I'm inclined to point out that this support appears confined to the Russian ethnic minority though, with younger people and non-Russians generally opposing it. Crimean Tartars have a number of grievances for instance and Putin seems content to have them brushed away.

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.

The ones in Central Europe are doing relatively well, and they maintain closer relationships with Germany and the EU than they do with Russia. The Baltic states fall into that category as well, as you mentioned. This makes logical sense given that Germany and the EU have more economic clout than Russia and have cultural traditions that probably appeal more to those European states.

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.

Time to establish Greater Armenia.

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

Interesting. I might have to throw random questions at you from time to time if you'll allow it.

We women are never humbled, just temporarily taken aback.

[New Bradenia]

I meant YPG

So, the SDF. My commentary still stands. Not to mention that them defeating said Turkish-backed rebels would mean fighting Turkey, a NATO member. True allies of NATO, though, amirite?

Well Turkey is a ally of the USA but not in a war like this

[Minoa]

Such attempts at trying to convince people that war will happen, because of some setback, may discourage hope and determination to prevent such war through diplomacy.

I believe, that there's always a point, when war is unavoidable and impossible to prevent.

But many people will refuse to accept it to the last minute.

I blame conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and David Meade for all those WWIII speculations they made, in a way that is akin to crying wolf many many times to a point that I am sick and tired of such speculations.

[Torrocca]

"I ignore the context of a situation and just take the labels applied by governments to organizations to see whether they're bad or good!"

Someone hasn't been keeping up with the Turkish oppression of the Kurds. =^)



Evidence of the YPG murdering civilians?

I, meanwhile, can give you evidence of Turkish soldiers (AND the former ISIS/FSA goons now on their payroll) murdering and mutilating Kurdish people in Afrin like utter savages (mind you, the city was evacuated by the YPG, and Kurdish fighters fought outside the city to prevent harm to non-evacuees), such as the female YPG fighter whose corpse was mutilated by them that made rounds in the news.

And Kurdish Syria isn't democratic? lmao

1. I don't deny that that happens. However, it has definitely been declining in recent years. Much of the oppression stems from terrorist groups being heavily present among the kurds, and while I disagree with discrimination it is not impossible to see where it comes from and that the kurds have not helped their case.

Or, maybe, and hear me out here, the Kurds are going through their own phase similar to the Irish independence, wherein they can only counter violence with violence.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that.

2. https://www.dailysabah.com/columns/nage ... n-advances, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/pydypg ... ry--113107. I accept that you won't accept these sources, because they are from the other side, but that's online political discussion.

Why not give some third party sources instead? :^)

3. It's democratic, but not representative of the Syrian population who are for the most part conservative muslims. The YPG rely on foreign fighters , because they know that they don't have enough appeal.

... Because they're not representing the Syrian population to begin with? Duh?

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

So, the SDF. My commentary still stands. Not to mention that them defeating said Turkish-backed rebels would mean fighting Turkey, a NATO member. True allies of NATO, though, amirite?

Well Turkey is a ally of the USA but not in a war like this

What makes you say that? Turkey is a full member of NATO, hosts American military facilities, and even hosts American nuclear weapons. America would support some rebel groups over their longtime ally in the region? Lol you overestimate American morals.

[New Bradenia]

Well Turkey is a ally of the USA but not in a war like this

What makes you say that? Turkey is a full member of NATO, hosts American military facilities, and even hosts American nuclear weapons. America would support some rebel groups over their longtime ally in the region? Lol you overestimate American morals.

Yeah Yeah All tha... TURKEY HOSTED AMERICAN NUKES BY PRESIDENT KENNEDY

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

What makes you say that? Turkey is a full member of NATO, hosts American military facilities, and even hosts American nuclear weapons. America would support some rebel groups over their longtime ally in the region? Lol you overestimate American morals.

Yeah Yeah All tha... TURKEY HOSTED AMERICAN NUKES BY PRESIDENT KENNEDY

What?

[New Bradenia]

What makes you say that? Turkey is a full member of NATO, hosts American military facilities, and even hosts American nuclear weapons. America would support some rebel groups over their longtime ally in the region? Lol you overestimate American morals.

Yeah Yeah All tha... TURKEY HOSTED AMERICAN NUKES BY PRESIDENT KENNEDY

I just realized

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Yeah Yeah All tha... TURKEY HOSTED AMERICAN NUKES BY PRESIDENT KENNEDY

I just realized

Yeah. There are currently 50 tactical nuclear weapons sitting in Incirlik Air Base.

[New Bradenia]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War here is the Syrian Civil War on Wikipedia

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War here is the Syrian Civil War on Wikipedia

What about it...?

[Auze]

In other news, the UAE seized an island from Yemen. Specifically, the side they were supporting.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

In other news, the UAE seized an island from Yemen. Specifically, the side they were supporting.

Not just any island. The largest island in Yemen and one of the most strategically important in the world.

[Fahran]

In other news, the UAE seized an island from Yemen. Specifically, the side they were supporting.

Not just any island. The largest island in Yemen and one of the most strategically important in the world.

Cue Eritrean invasion in 3... 2... 1...

[United Muscovite Nations]

20 Iranian rockets were fired on Israeli positions in the Golan Heights, mostly unintercepted.

[Trumptonium1]

Syrian air defences intercept multiple Israeli rockets over the last few minutes, success unknown

Sketchy news though, BBC unclear