However, a rise in the standard of living for poor people, which invariably leads to a decline in the birth rate (the more babies survive, and the more choice women have, the fewer babies - works every time) But that's not going to happen. — Vera Mont

Why not?

It has happened. That it has happened in India and in China are really game changers, because we are talking about a huge segment of World population with the two. We might see in our lifetime peak human population.

. The growing wealth * of the already-too-rich gathering more wealth from the third countries to amass in the first ones by modern technological methods will continue to guarantee that the poor just keep getting poorer. — Vera Mont

And for this you refer to the opening a new bank vault for the rich three years ago?

Sorry, but the poorest haven't gotten poorer.

They'd likely have preferred US (and whatever) presence staying in Afghanistan: — jorndoe

Afghanistan was a real tragedy.

First, perhaps it would have been too much to ask from any US administration (Dem or GOP) simply not to attack Afghanistan, but simply use the FBI (as it had done in the first Twin Tower bombings). So there is the FIRST horrible tragedy: the American voters wanted revenge, and a police matter would be a weak-dick move from a Superpower with the largest armed forces that was capable of invading a land locked country on a different continent.

Secondly, once when the country had been occupied (on reasoning far less sound or logical than the domino theory), the objective would have been then to win the war. But it wasn't. US Presidents declaring that they are going to withdraw was the clearest sign of winning the war simply by waiting time. And since the Taliban were terrorists, the US couldn't win as the UK won the Boer war or Russia won the Chechen war by simply installing a turncoat Taliban leader as the president of Afghanistan and dividing the movement. Nope, the leader had to be American-Afghan with stellar career inside Washington.

The last tragedy was of course to totally leave the state that had been poured so much aid and training totally alone to face the Taliban with the Doha peacy (surrender treaty). As the Taliban werem't actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks, they could easily agree to the terms of the US not to attack the US. And of course, they have kept that word to this day, which just clearly shows how insane the whole idea of being in Afghanistan for it not to become a terrorist safe haven was.

And because in the US only partisan issues are talked in the media, the silence about the whole train wreck is nearly total as an Republican President started this and a Democrat President followed this to the total collapse. With both of the two ruling parties being at fault here, there is no real discussion of just why it went so wrong.

Obviously people would prefer something else than a totalitarian dictatorship. You first had for a over an decade girls going to school and then that was stopped. That urban people in Afghanistan would have like to have a more prosperous Afghanistan that would be part of the World is obvious too.

But the Emirate is limping along (a documentary from Al Jazeera):

A German documentary on the occupation / de-occupation of the city of Kupyansk. Kupyansk is close the Luhansk. Hence this is more "Russian" parts of Ukraine and part of the areas which Putin has triumphantly annexed. The document clearly shows the brutal occupation and the cumbersome attempts of Russification. But it also show how some of the did work for Russia and as one Ukrainian activist estimates, about 20% to 25% of the people supported Russia. Now the Russians are out, but there artillery is still in range.

Putin's introduction of a mandatory oath for employees of Wagner and other private military contractors was a clear move to bring such groups under tighter state control.

Ah, That then solves it! With that mandatory oath, everything is fine now, I guess... :smirk:

It's a statement about provability for statements in a certain class of consistent systems (those than can encompass arithmetic) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Stop right there. It's about limitations in mathematics.

To talk about "certain classes of consistent system" can mislead someone to thinking Gödel is talking about something obscure. Yet it is the limited obscure fields in Mathematics which don't encompass arithmetic, which are the fields that need long descriptions to formalize them. And just what you can do with them (as they are likely to be extremely simplistic) more than give a theoretical description about them is usually even more difficult.

It's all part of Baldrick's Putin's Cunning Plan.
to make us misunderestimate him. — unenlightened

Ah, you mean like Trump wasn't fumbling in his Presidency with his administration just waiting for the next thing he would say, but it all was just 4D Chess that we simply didn't figure out?

So his move is to make himself look weak and his regime incapable of functioning as it should?

Maybe Putin will try to install a trusted ruthless gangster somehow. As long as they can get fighting and money going. — jorndoe

It was the age old trick of separating your military to different competing parties in order to avoid an other power center than you emerging. First the division of Russian Armed Forces and the National Guard (which is headed by former bodyguard and friend of Putin) and then the use of private armies (which actually there are more than just the Wagner) when you want deniability.

That works when all of the organizations remain loyal and compete for your for your attention. It's gone horribly wrong when they literally fight each other (something that basically is happening in Sudan right now). Then the whole system of "divide and rule" is only an underlying structural reason for weakness and instability.

I would assume that now Putin will try to centralize the military again and won't let the entrepreneurial spirit of the private mercenary groups roam freely. But once you have created such a system, it isn't so easy to simply dismantle it. How long Prigozhin was still living after the mutiny and that he simply wasn't detained and court-martialed (with the same end result) just shows how fragile the situation is for Putin.

(During the mutiny, Prigozhin sitting with Russian generals in Rostov on Don, who were or weren't his prisoners)


And the scariest part is that by telling the truth about the war (with a populist way), Prigozhin started to have popularity. And that people lay flowers in memorials for Prigozhin just tells that Putin's control isn't anything compared to Stalin.

Anyhow, the whole Wagner mutiny was an epic disaster and a loss of face for Putin. It's not a show of strength that Putin kills now the Wagner leadership, it's an obvious sign of weakness.

Just ask yourself, why wasn't Prigozhin simply detained and court-martialed or faced a trial in the Russian justice system? Not only mutiny, but shooting down aircraft of the Russia Air Force would in any country be such an outrageous attack, basically multiple murders, hence the case ought to be very clear cut. Stalin had at least show trials for the most prominent victims of his purges.

Now there's not even a thread of the state working as it should.

If the leadership of a country cannot rely on it's own judicial system, but is left to use mobster killings, it's quite understandable that they can in turn be whacked too. And nobody will give a fuck about it, because the credibility has gone.

What I've found is that conservative conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy only as long as there's no evidence of the conspiracy. — flannel jesus

Well, once there's sound and agreed upon evidence of a conspiracy, it actually becomes a fact. And then the much hated "mainstream media" takes it as a fact too. And that's the last thing conspiracy theorists want to promote: same things as the "mainstream media" is reporting!

Think about it. How much do conspiracy theorists talk about the conspiracy of the White House neocons saying that Iraq was behind 9/11 too and there is a large and functioning WMD project in Iraq? Actually White House personnel would have gone to prison, if they wouldn't have been pardoned by the outgoing US President. You can watch now movies about it.

Hence that's something you can read in the mainstream media now. And in history books also...

What's the feint?

Mutiny feint? Russian aircraft shot down feint? The mutineer then killed feint? :roll:

I mean, the CIA probably has given at least some sort of minor support to most of these movements but that hardly means it's decisive or even moved the needle. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Actually, it has been the Department of State, not the CIA, which at the present has been most successful. And of course there really are NGOs, or simply rich people like Soros. Of course Putin just puts them all into the same basket as there is only one basket in Russia: his basket. As in an earlier discussion about the subject, one PF member reminded that actually the US supported the opposition (to further democracy) in France when there was a social democratic administration there. France asked formally about the issue (what the hell?) and the humiliated US had to acknowledge that someone in the government apparatus had done such a thing.

But here's the issue: the best success of this kind of aiding the opposition happened in Serbia (to ouster Milosevic) and was done by the State Department. With little money and effort Milosevic was ousted and his regime crumbled. The CIA really wasn't involved and neither the military. And at that time, the US was quite open about it. Yet is Serbia in NATO? No, Serbia is a close friend to Russia. It isn't at all close to the US. And we know the reason: if NATO bombs the country, the people surely won't be happy about it.

Yet this is what the anti-US crowd seem to forget: countries are independent actors, and so are the politicians and groups of these countries. Some opposition movement or general can accept US support, but that doesn't make him a puppet of the US.

The puppets we have seen are like the former President of Afghanistan, who since high-school had lived in the US and made an stellar career in Washington and in international organizations. Anywhere else than in Afghanistan, that is. Hence it's no wonder that this guy, after been told to leave by the Taleban, abandoned his country and government with likely hundreds of millions of dollars and didn't put up a defence like Zelensky. But for some an Ukrainian administration that has nothing to do with the 2014 revolution are CIA backed nazis.

Not the Zelensky approach:

I am assuming that the treaty actually ends the war (i.e. Russia cannot continue it in a near future, at least not until Ukraine is in NATO). — Jabberwock

Or if Ukraine is in NATO, that would be a guarantee that Russia doesn't the war after rebuilding it's offensive capacity.

As you write, for Russia it is a prized jewel of the empire, losing Sevastopol would be a hard blow; for Ukraine not so much. — Jabberwock

As you write, the whole war hasn't been much of a blow for Russia, but for Ukraine it surely has. A few drone strikes basically on military installations and the sanctions aren't anywhere close to what Ukraine is going through.

But if you have Zaporozhia, it is quite easy to cut off supplies from Crimea - just take down the Kerch Bridge. That is what the current offensive is about. — Jabberwock

To have Crimea under siege isn't similar to occupying it. In this situation Russia can simply transfer all the non-crucial people out of Crimea and still hold on to it. Remember the siege of Leningrad.

Crimea is worth much more to Russians than to Ukraine. — Jabberwock

How so?

With Crimea, Russia can easily block (as it does) sea routes Ukraine is quite dependent, as we have seen. You see, the route from Odessa and other ports (and we have to forget ports in the Azov sea) and any sea route to them is easily inside the range of even the land based K-300P Bastion anti-ship missile system.

Yet the Black Sea isn't the only route to global sea trade for Russia and even without Crimea, Russia still would have it's ports in Novorossiysk among others in the Black Sea.

The Novorossiysk port in Russia (proper) on the Black Sea. Quite large, actually:


And the Russian fleet has a military naval base there already:


If your argument is that Russia needs Crimea for it's imperial domain, then I agree. For Russia to show that it can unify all Russians living now in various other sovereign states back to mother Russia, sure, Crimea is great achievement in furthering this ideal. Especially for Putin it was the victory he can boast about. But once you get something, usually the appetite grows and there's many Russians still out of Russia. Comes to mind how Hitler viewed the Volksdeutsche and had the policy of Heim ins Reich.

Among all, it would be simply a humilitian for a country that think of itself as an natural Empire. Yes, that would be difficult for a country that thinks it's still a Superpower.

On the other hand, militarily it will be easier to take back Crimea than Donbass. — Jabberwock

Well, to literally get landforces into Crimea is difficult. In this map triangles show where Russia has built fortifications. A lot of trenches and dragons teeth in the Crimea too now.

(where's that photo from anyway?) — jorndoe

That's actually from Putin's firm ally, Belarus. And people there not being happy about their leader. But now I guess everything is fine.

Conversely, Ukraine had (and has) international and domestic monitors. I guess that would end if they were to be assimilated by Russia. — jorndoe

If Ukrainian elections would be rigged, yes, we would know about it. I'm pretty confident about that.

And in Ukraine the war has done something which the WW2 did in Finland, it ended the political quarrel about language. And also the real threat from the far right (which actually was the worst prior to 2014) has in my view subsided to a Russian talking point (and even the Russian's aren't talking about denazification so much).

Perhaps in my view the only real obstacle is for Ukraine is to do away with the corruption. You see, a lot of money is now pured to the country and if (when) the war is over, the West will likely help with the reconstruction effort. Here lies the possibility of a problem: if this is done without supervision, it will just creat rampant corruption as all the money poured into Afghanistan did. If Ukraine is left to itself, this might be the hardest problem afterwards. And as someone observed: if Russia then stay basically where it is now, who will genuinely invest in the country? The fear of the war reigniting will be there. Hence Western security guarantees will be needed then.

There are no and never have been any grass roots opposition movements in Russia and it's near abroad. None. Everything is CIA/Western backed covert operations for Putin. And when you repeat the lie again and again, you will start to believe it yourself. What else could you admit to yourself later?

maybe the coup in Niger (after the coups in Mali and Burkina Faso), will make France less hesitant against the Russians now. — neomac

If either France or the US will say by a high ranking diplomat or official that Wagner and Russia has been involved, that surely would show that they are on the warfoot with Russia in Africa. If they don't say that, it tells something also.

And as Wagner is a private company and the members are mercenaries, it's not an escalation to attack them as would be let's say Russia military advisors of the armed forces or deployed Russian troops. This happened with Wagner and US forces coming into blows in a fight on an Conoco oil installation in Syria.

Why does world politics look like the 19th Century? — frank

Especially post-WW2 Cold War got world politics to look to be two sided. Now it's really getting back to being multipolar. Also in the way that so-called allies of one camp can be found meddling in some third countries internal politics being on different sides. Something that would have been unheard of during the Cold War. You have simply more independent and active participants.

Science and technology has improved, but has there been much other improvement? For me World politics looks more and more like in the 19th Century.

There is a country in the Sahel that should be discussed in thread: Sudan.

The latest fighting has been because of a power struggle inside the armed forces, between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) lead by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo and known as Hemedti and Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the commander of the armed forces.

Some might remember the outcry in 2003 about the war in Darfur. The paramilitary Janjaweed responsible of a genocidal attack against the Darfuri people later was formed into the RSF, which was directly responsible to the former president Omar al-Bashir.

Here's a quick 5-minute recap of what has happened in Sudan (from some months ago, but still current:



Sudan has had 15 military coups since it's independence and even regions that have detached from it (South Sudan) haven't had good luck politically. Now it really is on the road to become a bigger failed state than Somalia. It seems that the fighting has again started in Darfur.

(Earlier the officers got on together, here next to each other from the left:)


In Western countries we assume that the armed forces are basically one single entity, but where there is the possibility of a military coup, the leadership fearing a coup usually divides on purpose the armed forces to separate organizations that basically are against each other in order to avoid a coup. Sudan is one example of infighting inside the armed forces, but the actually so is Russia (with the Prigozhin mutiny). Such arrangements many times make things worse.

Now it is estimated that about 1 million have fled the country.

You can defend yourself when someone wants to hurt you. But it should be quite clear that the person is really going to attack and hurt you. We know very well just how easy the wording "an existential threat" is used in politics even today and "pre-emption" is cherished.

It really comes down to when people think that they will create a better World by killing other people. Be those to be killed the rich, the jews, the infidels, the communists or whoever. Ideologies, religion and the demand for justice etc. are just excuses that are used to implement the atrocities.

Point being, Russia and China are bad examples because they were absolute basket cases before communism and in many ways improved despite communism, while it's unclear that any system could have avoided their problems. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course, you have the best example of Marxism-Leninism in the example of East-Germany and how it compared to West-Germany. It didn't experience famine and didn't experience massive purges, even if it had a large security state. Germans really showed just where you could make of Marxist-Leninist socialism. And we really have to remember that the most successful version of socialism has been with social-democracy, which is still quite alive an kicking in the Western World. Social Democrats have ruled many Western countries and are and inherent part of Western democracy just as are conservatives.

I think it isn't even just related to Communist revolutions but overall to revolutions: just how bloody or bloodless they can be differs. The French Revolution compared to American Revolution is the best example I can think of. Both countries had to fight foreign armies ("foreign" perhaps in the US case), but only one had internal terror.

When you have radicals in control that share a firm belief that they can better the World by killing the "bad" people, then there is no end to the piles of bodies they leave behind them. Pol Pot is a good example, but so is the Holodomor.

And when you have these killers then reading Marx, they will interpret Communist Revolution literally meaning that you have to kill the bourgeois, kill the rich, in order for the class struggle to succeed. Heaven forbid if you then are defined as "rich", a "kulak" or an "enemy of the state". The similar kinds of people can read the Koran and have their own ideas what fighting the "Jihad" means and would happily kill the unbelievers. Even Christianity has had this with it's Crusades, which really is a bizarre feat to pull out from the teachings of Jesus Christ, and all those time people wanted to build "The New Jerusalem".

It should be noted that the ruble has dramatically lost value also to the Chinese yuan and the Indian rupee. About 70% of Russian-Chinese trade is done in yuan and the ruble. Two years ago it was 30%.

I'm wondering how it's felt on the streets. — jorndoe

Russians will soldier on and just try to cope with it. It's not like they could be angry on the ballot box and choose a different leader and party in the oncoming presidential elections next March. Besides, they have it quite easy compared to the Ukrainians.

Furthermore, Russia did experience also higher inflation that for example the eurozone, even if now isn't so rapid:

Banned Jack Rogozhin for being a returning banned member. — Baden

When was he first banned?

The supposed 'coup' was preceded by three months of protests with dozens of thousands of participants. Were those all CIA agents? — Jabberwock

The most important development is typically left out of the "US Coup" narrative: That after few months Ukraine held democratic elections after the revolution where the ultra-nationalists lost (the Svoboda party was out of the new administration). And since then there has been many governments and a party that didn't exist in 2014 won the Parliamentary and Presidential elections, which is now leading Ukraine.

But somehow they are CIA backed nazis. Even if lead by a Russian speaking Jew.

Lavrov has said similar things:

Question: Could you please comment on the events in Niger?

Sergey Lavrov: The Foreign Ministry of Russia has already commented on the attempted coup (as I understand, everything is still in motion there) in Niger. We believe the coup is an anti-constitutional act. We always occupy a clear position in such cases.

But have to say that it's Prigozhin's Wagner, which is active in Mali and CAR makes it all quite puzzling.

Hope the ideas of military incursion to Niger simply fade away. That's at least avoiding the worst possible catastrophy.

Global inequality has been falling since the 90s and has fallen at a faster rate since 2019. But at the same time, the share of wealth held by the top 1% has also been steadily increasing. Both phenomena seem set to continue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly. As the West hasn't seen such rapid growth, we tend to miss just what a huge transformation has happened in China, the Far East and is happening in India. It's a fantastic development that people that has really faced large scale famine (and did experience a famine of 15 to 55 million deaths in 1959-1961) has prospered so much. All thanks to Chinese Marxism! :wink:

Although, I do wonder if the shift of population growth towards Sub-Saharan Africa might effect this trend in the long term. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The hope would be, that after Asia, the economic growth would finally start in Africa. Yes, it starts with sweatshops and cheap labour, but hopefully similar development as in Asia would happen there too. Yet there are many problems that can make it not happen.

Remittances dwarf all foreign aid; people send a LOT of money back when they migrate away. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As do direct investments work. With Foreign aid I'm not so sure: it is basically drug addiction that doesn't make the countries better. In fact the now collapsed Republic of Afghanistan is a perfect example of just pouring money creates: rampant corruption and state that collapses. Before the collapse, 43% of the GDP of Afghanistan came from foreign aid. About 75% of public spending was funded by foreign aid grants. That is totally reckless, basically from the West that was responsible of this. Yet when you look at the countries that have really developed, really went from the verge of famine to an industrialized country, it hasn't happened because of foreign aid. Foreign markets, yes, but not aid.

Shanghai in 1990 and in 2010, just 20 years:

RICO charges for Trump in Georgia.

Trumpism isn't going to be defeated in court anyways. — Benkei

And Trumpism might succeed better without Trump and with Trump being a fond memory.
Or actually it should just be called populism.

You clearly dont' care about national sovereignty or sovereign borders. — Jack Rogozhin

Lol :lol:

Says the person that has written on nationality sovereignty and sovereign borders this:

And again, Crimea was never part of Ukraine proper but part of it when it was a territory for 40 years, after being part of Russia for hundreds. Even if there is a rule about borders, it wouldn't quite apply here.

And...

Russia rightly doesn't consider Crimea taken land. It had been Russian territory for centuries until Ukrainian Kruschev gave it to Ukraine in a narcissistic, ceremonial move not anticipating the Soviet Union's breakup...Kruschev wasn't a brainiac.

So for you, sovereign borders don't apply ...in some cases. Some aggressors are understood.

Whereas for me the sovereignty of the states, and there borders, is important. Of course there are problems like those who don't have a nation like the Kurds, so borders can be redrawn, hopefully peacefully. At least sticking to territorial integrity is one way to make the World less violent than it is. Hence I was against Operation Iraqi Freedom and think that the reasoning of invading Afghanistan and the reasoning was absolutely crazy. And if now ECOWAS with French or US assistance would go into Niger, I would oppose it. (But I guess you haven't noticed it)

This is hilarious. The US has pushed--often very successfully--coups in Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Venezuela, Syria, Ukraine, Australia, and many other countries...just this year in Pakistan. Where do you get your world history from? — Jack Rogozhin

Obviously you don't seem to read what I write, but simply attack something you intend me being.

(And when was there a US sponsored military coup in Australia? Or are you referring to the Rum Rebellion? I don't think the US was involved, but you have to enlighten me.)

Your arguments make it clear you think America has the right to violate that sovereignty as they have done for almost a century — Jack Rogozhin

Again a strawman as I've never said that. Or thought. I was on the previous Philosophy Forum site arguing with Americans defending President Bush's decision to invade Iraq as a wrongful move.

You literally said American only TRIES to influence states and the actions are limited. Tell that to Afghanistan, Syria, Libya — Jack Rogozhin

1. And Afghanistan is an Islamic Emirate today.
2. Syria is still being lead by Bashar al-Assad with basically the civil war now won by him and neighboring states starting to normalize their relations.
3. Yes, Libya is a mess...and there's a multitude of countries involved. Basically so-called allies of the US are on different sides supporting different groups.

So look yourself at how that influencing has gone. I will remain with my words: the US TRIES TO influence states, it doesn't control them and they aren't the helpless victims as you think they are in the face of your country. Clearly the World doesn't go the way people in Washington DC want it to go.

Nuland even made implicit threats against Niger if they didn't turn the government back over to the deposed ruler....that is absolutely disregard and violation of sovereignty. — Jack Rogozhin

Western countries, just like the ECOWAS, condemn military overthrows. Condemnation and sanctions are one thing. A military intervention or military action is quite different. We haven't yet seen what will happen in Niger, yet in the example of Mali, they just left. Yet there is the threat that this could get out of hand.

The US is doing the same thing in Syria where they have multiple unwanted bases and soldiers where they steal Syria's oil — Jack Rogozhin

Here is a perfect example of your totally ignorant attitude about the reality on the ground. Or then you simply paint with such broad strokes your World that it doesn't make much sense (other than US bad, those who oppose the US are good).

The US isn't doing the "same thing" in the countries of Sahel as it has done with Syria. With Syria Obama tried to start a war against the regime, but didn't get any of it's allies with it and backed down (Obama's famous line in the sand). Then Trump attacked Syrian armed forces (an airbase). And the US had an absolute fiasco of trying to form a "politically correct" opposition fighters to fight the Syrian regime, which basically feared more about the fighters themselves being islamists or that the weapons would go to islamists. And lastly it went to Syria to fight ISIS and has quarelled with Wagner troops there. Syria has been an absolute trainwreck for the US.

The Sahel countries are different.

Yet the US hasn't attacked Nigerien forces. It has trained these forces, and these generals, that now took over. But for you such difference seem not to matter. Because Nigerien leaders have been puppets, not politicians that have faced a huge tasks with their countries. You know the facts and others are just American jingoists.

It asked and was given permission by their puppet ruler. — Jack Rogozhin

Again the obsession of puppets.

you've spouted such naive NATO/American jingoism — Jack Rogozhin

Like what a failure the war on Terror has been? How bad it has gone?

Right, thta's American jingoism. Likely you don't care to read what I actually say. But seems you see puppets everywhere.

Has the economic anarchy of capitalism produced the current status quo of 2/3rds of the world living below the poverty line? — an-salad

Actually, there are now less people living in absolute povetry than earlier.

Perhaps the reason isn't only capitalism. It might be also that China and India threw away old school socialism.



But we can always choose again socialism! :wink:

It's funny how SSU is so concerned about the sovereign borders of Ukraine, but cares nothing for the sovereign borders and sovereignty of Niger...or any other countries sovereignty the US has violated — Jack Rogozhin

Because the US didn't attack Niger. Or it hasn't annexed parts of Niger.

It asked and was given permission and then build the base starting in 2016 for Nigerien armed forces too. Niger then was feeling the pressure from islamists from Mali and Boko Haram from Nigeria.

And then, after many years, things has gotten worse and not much had improved. As I stated with example of the Dogon and the herders or Azawad, not everything is about islamists in the Sahel. Which has been the basic problem. I'm not sure if you have much knowledge just how his war has evolved.

Now perhaps it can ask for the US to leave, as it has asked the French to leave.

US might have to leave the Sahel like it had to leave Central Asia and the stans (not only Afghanistan).

i have correctly shown where this has occurred. — Jack Rogozhin

Just what have you correctly shown? What you have said is "Sorry, but the Niger coup against America, France, and their puppet government has the backing of the Niger people and is not evil". And then you have referred to Ukraine and Hungary.

That's not much and not very informative.

What is the role of US military in Niger? — T Clark

I guess to fight GWOT. Or whatever under the Biden administration it is called.

As it's centrally located in the Sahel and up until now has been rather stable, it (the US) has a drone base in Agadez (Air Base 201) in the country and has about 1000 soldiers in the country. (The French basically have had their troops in the Niamey airport.) Being next to Mali, Libya, Algeria, Chad and Nigeria makes it a good place for drones that still have a limited range.



The war against the islamists came up in 2017 when a group of US special forces were ambushed in Niger close to the Malian border.

Just why the GWOT or fight against the islamist has been a train wreck is great issue to talk about.

So, is this iteration of the Great Game primarily an economic one, countries grabbing for markets? Is there still a military purpose, i.e. a struggle for political hegemony? — T Clark

France and it's relation especial to the Sahel region and Sub-Saharan Africa is still that kind of traditional.

China is different. You have to sell somewhere the concrete you produce, when you produce in two years as much concrete that the US has produced in the 20th Century. China isn't fighting a war on Terror in Africa. It literally doesn't have the bases. Last time, apart from attacking Indian border guards with sticks, China used it's military was against the Vietnamese and that border war didn't go so well for China. One could say that China can be a bully only with it's close neighbors.

Especially the US is scared about China in Africa, but then again, the Development Aid by the West has been quite similar... and not so effective.

Let's remember that "Development Aid", especially to African countries, is nearly allways a way to substitute your OWN industry and corporations that do the projects. If China goes to Africa and builds a railroad, the workers, engineers and project leaders as the machines will be Chinese. Perhaps the engineer driving the train will be African, but he has had to learn Chinese. And many countries do the same. Development aid isn't similar to an direct investment, somebody believing in the economy of the country (or in the cheap workforce) and investing their money in an business enterprise.

What's the obsession with misrepresenting a statement of fact as "obsession with puppets"? What's with your obsession with denying the fact "first world countries" have always, and still have, puppet leaders in third (and even second and first) world countries. It's like you've never heard of colonialism, imperialism, or soft power — Jack Rogozhin

What statement of facts?

Seems like if previously you couldn't say anything about the reasons of Putins actions, somehow now Nigerien politics is quite clear to you as are the facts.

Perhaps you don't seem to notice just how condescending it is to view everything evolving around the US and the Great Powers and everybody else being puppets, pawns and sycophants. Yes, these counties TRY to influence states, yet the actions are limited. They can influence only so much what events happen and in the end foreign countries are just one group of actors in a country. Yet if we are fixated only the colonialists, domestic poltics and internal problems don't matter. Perhaps it's too difficult for Americans to understand it as everything has to be about them, it seems.

In the case of Niger coup, we still don't know the reasons.

Yet if President Bazoum had forced generals into retirement and it's alleged that he was trying to retire the 62-year old general Tchiani, wouldn't that be a reason for the general to do a military coup and then get support for by playing the populist / anti-colonialism card?

It was known that his (Tchiani's) relations with Mr Bazoum, a longstanding ally of Mr Issoufou (previous president), were more distant and in recent weeks there were rumours that the president was preparing to force him into retirement.

Or these US trained officers just suddenly felt this anti-colonial vibe and went for it?

And isn't Bazoum then trying to influence the US when he is asking them for help and portraying that Wagner is behind it?

Besides, the real danger is if ECOWAS really would go with it's ultimatum and the nations would go to war, which is totally catastrophic.

In other countries the parties promote younger politicians. The older politicians don't take the top jobs, but are OK once their stint on the political cutting edge is over. In my country the previous administration was a perfect example of this. By perhaps coincidence, the leftist parties along with the centrist party wanted to look young and feminine, and they all put as their party bosses fairly young women. The end result was a coalition administration of them that looked like this:


Those four are all leaders of their political parties. Of course, the parties are still male dominated and party activists are as old as anywhere, but it's the image that counts, I guess.

Yet it seems in America the dual-party system is so entrenched, that there seems to be a culture of older guys getting finally the top jobs after a long, loyal career for the party.

I mean, just look at them:

Sorry, but the Niger coup against America, France, and their puppet government has the backing of the Niger people and is not evil — Jack Rogozhin

What's the obsession with puppets? I think Nigerien political actors themselves have a role in this and Nigerien domestic politics can be a bigger reason, like Bazoum forcing generals to retire. Yes, there is disenchantment about the democracy of Bazoum's administration.

Yet Bazoum representing Nigerien Party for Democracy and Socialism won the elections in 2021 from a former president of Niger Mahamane Ousmane. Btw Ousmane had been also thrown out of power by a military coup and there had been one failed coup against Bazoum already in 2021. So were they both puppets or what?

And coup against America? France, definately yes, US perhaps not:

(REUTERS 10th Aug 2023) After ousting President Mohamed Bazoum from office on July 26 and placing him under house arrest, the junta revoked military cooperation agreements with France, which has between 1,000 and 1,500 troops in the country.

So far the United States has not received any request to remove its troops and does not have any indication that it will be forced to do so, said two U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

And I think five officers of the junta have been trained in the US... and Victoria N has been already there to talk with them.

I can't help thinking that Russia and China are somehow responsible for stirring up this mess. — magritte

China's interest in the Sahel (and in Africa in general) with it's Belt and Road Initiative is simply to get more customers for it's industry and enlarge it's infrastructure building beyond China. China's only military base in Africa is in Djibouti, where it shares the place with a myriad of other countries from Saudi-Arabia alongside France, Germany, Japan and the US.

(The below map is old as Mali doesn't have the international operations going in it anymore and hence no western bases. French troops left the country last year)



Russia has been more active in the "Great Game" by giving an alternative to the West in security services, and it's mercenaries from Wagner have been active in Central African Republic (CAR) and Mali. Mali, which had seen a lot of Western assistance in the form Operation Serval and Berkhane, went on to have Wagner troops after the French withdrew. Mali's junta has openly advertized that the Wagner forces have been effective, hence it's likely that people in Niger see Russia as a preferable option, because there is a genuine security problem. Yet it goes a bit too far to say that Russia is behind this mess: Russia gives an alternative choice which some factions can think is an answer to their problems. Hence the Russian flags and pro-Russian sentiment in the demonstrations. But this isn't clear cut. For example the military junta in Burkina Faso has said it doesn't want Wagner / Russians to come to help them.

Does this in any way mean that the military might be able to provide more stable government than the civil sector? — T Clark

Stable government is far more than the security sector, and that's a problem. You cannot use only a hammer, if you would need a saw or an axe. And military junta's are prone to corruption and building a "military-industrial complex" where the armed forces have a large role in the country's businesses.

Are there any areas of peace and stability. — T Clark

I guess Senegal has been rather peaceful and stable, even if there are internal problems even there. But there hasn't been a military coup in the country or a civil war, although that from 1960 the country has had only four presidents. Yet economic growth has happened more in East Africa than in West Africa, where the Sahel region hasn't seen much if any improvement.

I read parts of Mungo Park's "Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa." If I remember correctly, he travelled up the Gambia River and down the Niger in the period between 1795 and 1805. He painted a picture of a region made up of small, relatively peaceful and prosperous kingdoms. — T Clark

That's basically hundred years before Europeans colonized the Sahel region. Learning pre-colonial history of Africa is very informative as usually people just gaze at the continent from the (negativs) effects that colonalization had on the countries. In a way just looking at Africa (and the Sahel) as the playground for European Great Powers downplays the African actors and African issues.

Mental fitness tests for presidential candidates would be fantastic. — flannel jesus

Simply a younger generation of candidates is what the US needs. If I'd be an American, I really wouldn't be excited about choosing from two old farts like Trump and Biden, that have some probability of dying or being hospitalized during the next four years. What's this peculiar desire to pick so old people as representatives?

New Trump indictment coming down the pipe any day now. — NOS4A2

Likely impeachments will be the new norm for US administrations. You already have the theater of the debt ceiling, hence what could be more useful than have impeachment hearings every then and now?