If "US training" is such a big deal, what the hell happened in Afghanistan?
When it comes to problems in the developing world, I think we neglect to highlight Islam's role. Islam is an Arab religion that has spread across Africa and Asia. It supplants local cultures and religions and Muslim-dominated countries tend to be caught in a stalemate between popular Islamist regimes and military dictatorship. Egypt is a prime example. Pakistan is looking more and more like a failed state.
I don't think the problem is the Quran but I've come to have a more negative view of the influence of Islam over the years. I think the problem is cultural imperialism: marginalization of local cultures and the Arabization that follows.
> Pakistan is looking more and more like a failed state.
When was the last time Pakistan had a popular Islamist regime? The answer is never. It was military strong man Zia Ul-Haq who set off on the Islamization project.
Unlike most nations that have an army, the Pakistani army has a nation. The conundrum that Pakistan finds itself in has more to do with this than any ideology. You can replace it with anything else and you'll still get the same result.
I don't know but if the military didn't dominate Pakistan, I wonder if there would be such a regime right now.
Even if Pakistan breaks the mold, there are lots of Muslim countries that don't. Even actual Arab countries (as in the Arabian peninsula) have dictatorships that are far more secular than the population and exert violence to control Islamist sentiment.
> I don't know but if the military didn't dominate Pakistan, I wonder if there would be such a regime right now.
Based on what, exactly?
Your thesis was:
> Muslim-dominated countries tend to be caught in a stalemate between popular Islamist regimes and military dictatorship.
And you cited Pakistan as an example. When it's pointed out that the situation in Pakistan is the opposite of your theory, your response is to double down on it?
> Even actual Arab countries (as in the Arabian peninsula) have dictatorships that are far more secular than the population and exert violence to control Islamist sentiment.
Like which ones? Most of them try to co-opt Islam as way to bolster their legitimacy. And they crackdown on any movement they see as a threat to their power, Islamic or otherwise.
I'm not an expert on Pakistan and I'm generalizing. Generalization is necessary to say anything including "the US shouldn't be training African armies" (something I agree with). As I said in my previous post, Pakistan may not fit the pattern but plenty of other Muslim countries do.
I recognize your claim that Zia, a military dictator, was the source of Pakistani Islamism. I would ask you (I don't know, I'm genuinely interested): in Pakistan, today, is the military more or less Islamist than the populace?
> Like which ones? Most of them try to co-opt Islam as way to bolster their legitimacy. And they crackdown on any movement they see as a threat to their power, Islamic or otherwise.
I agree with your description: these countries "co-opt Islam as way to bolster their legitimacy". My point is that they are less religious than the populace. They execute actual Islamists who are a threat to their power.
> All generalizations are false, including this one.
My problem is simplistic explanations tend to be very misleading. And I am very skeptical of cultural existentialism being a useful tool in understanding societies.
> pattern but plenty of other Muslim countries do.
I'm asking again, which ones?
> (I don't know, I'm genuinely interested): in Pakistan, today, is the military more or less Islamist
Pakistani society is probably the most Islamist in the world. The elite, both civilian and military are considerably less so.
> They execute actual Islamists who are a threat to their power.
They'll execute blasphemers, apostates, homosexuals and adulterers too. Along with liberals and communists.
> Pakistani society is probably the most Islamist in the world. The elite, both civilian and military are considerably less so.
Okay, so why is it such a stretch to say "if the military didn't dominate Pakistan, I wonder if there would be [an Islamist regime] right now"? Maybe that wouldn't be the case, maybe the elites who are also less Islamist would dominate, but it's not a crazy idea.
Having opinions about "Islam" or "governance" or "politics" is going to get you into a corner somewhere. But we have to have opinions about these things. What keeps us from paradox, as far as I'm concerned, is that some opinions are more right than others and actual events that occur out in the world confirm or refute certain opinions.
The entire foundation of that state is rooted in that religion even if the military has been the dominant institution. Without that religion in the mix that nation would not exist at all
Please note that the US military is highly competent in the existing-regime-ousting-and-chaos-generation part of the regime-change thing, the problem is always with the new-regime-building-establishing-order-and-peace part.
More than Islam, Islamism (i.e. militants of a political islam, not to be confused with jihadism). I can't think of any muslim country where the islamists are not either one of the major political parties (if not in power), or were a major political force but have been banned, or are a major party to a civil war.
I am sure I am missing some countries and many nuances but from a quick glance at the map and wikipedia:
Morocco: the previous prime minister was from an islamist party (Justice and Development Party)
Algeria: islamists (FIS) outlawed when about to win 1992 elections
Tunisia: islamists are the largest political party (Ennahda)
Libya: islamist a party to the civil war
Egypt: islamists won the elections (Morsi) before a coup
Mali: islamists are party to the current war
Saudi Arabia: political islam in power
Syria: islamists major party to civil war
Jordan: were major political party but have been banned
Iraq: islamists major party to civil war
Turkey: Erdogan is effectively a muslim brother
Iran: political islam in power
Afghanistan: talibans just took power
Pakistan: political islam in power
Indonesia: islamist parties being outlawed
Now there are all sort of other forces at play in political instability: ethnic hatred, various economic interests, etc. But the steady rise of islamism across the muslim world is real, and has probably a much bigger influence on the stability of africa than current or past western meddlings. In many ways it is the communism of the XXI century, i.e. an ideology which has gained widespread support, wants to take power one way or another, is an enemy of modern, secular, freedom loving liberalism, is full of internal divisions but have this common goal of imposing the Sharia as the rule of law. But its influence seems to have been completely ignored by the cookie cutter response that any problem of the world should be attributed to the West, one way or another.
Saudi Arabia: political islam in power => MBS somehow Tudoring it away at an unexpected pace
Turkey: Erdogan is effectively a muslim brother => On the decline, projected to be ousted next year
The Gulf states don't really have political parties as far as I understand. They are absolute monarchies.
> the steady rise of islamism across the muslim world is real
It waxes and wanes. May have peaked several places. Syria, Egypt and Iraq used to be quesi-socialist dictatorships for example.
Here is some black and white footage of Nasser from 1958laughing at the ridiculousness of somebody from the Muslim Brotherhood complaining about hijabs not being enforced:
Iran was a very different place before the revolution.
Turkey was originally pivoting towards secularism with Ataturk.
Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Jordan were/are primarily monarchies engaged in a game of thrones type battle royale etc.
> common goal of imposing the Sharia as the rule of law
Well, only kinda sorta. There's also the regional competition for supremacy between Shia and Sunni to consider. And all of this is overlaid untop of feudal tribal society dynamics.
> But its influence seems to have been completely ignored by the cookie cutter response that any problem of the world should be attributed to the West, one way or another.
Not only has it been ignored out of political correctness. In many cases the West for some reason likes to empower religious nutjobs whom they somehow find more palatable in the moment than whatever strongman is barely holding the place together - reliably causing untold amounts of misery, death, and destruction as some semblance of order is replaced with chaos for no coherent reason and with no plan for what comes next.
But yeah Islamism is one of several impossible problems that region is facing.
Well, my point isn't so much about who is in charge than the fact that there is a broad popular support for islamism in the muslim world, and that doesn't necessarily mean an absolute majority everywhere. Clearly the sharia is in force in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and seemingly with a strong popular support.
And I agree that it will wane over time, or at least I hope it will, like communism. And I think, like communism, the most anti-islamist countries will be the countries that had to live under Islamism (I am looking at Iran with interest). But that may take decades.
Regarding Shia vs Sunni, that's right but I don't think it negates my point. There were many rivalries between Stalinism vs Maoism vs Trotksism, etc, but it is still right to refer to them as communist ideologies with a common goal.
Take it with a giant grain of salt of course as it is an attempted puff piece. The Gulf states are not sharia. They want to be Vegas.
> And I agree that it will wane over time
And wax. All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.
> Regarding Shia vs Sunni, that's right but I don't think it negates my point. There were many rivalries between Stalinism vs Maoism vs Trotksism, etc, but it is still right to refer them as communist ideologies with a common goal.
I don't think that is super accurate. One of them generally wants to be a state religion the other wants to take over the region and afterwards the world.
Islam is hugely important for explaining the failures of the US and Soviet Union in being able to exercise influence in the region. It provided ideological resistance to the spread of communism which largely explains communism's failure in the region[1]. It played a role in the overthrow of the US-friendly Shah in Iran, and that's in small part because it is a non-secular religion and so it can easily substitute for nationalism (although those two get intertwined) as a mobilizing political force. It's played a large role in the failure of US policy in Iraq post-Saddam, due to the sectarian conflict brewing between the now-dominant Shia and the Sunnis who feel displaced in society following the purging of anyone that was aligned with the Baathists. Although it's still an open question in my mind whether it's just a regular tribal marker (similar to national or ethnic identity) or if it is something beyond that.
> If "US training" is such a big deal, what the hell happened in Afghanistan?
I think if anything Afghanistan shows the strengths of the US military in regime change. Where the US failed is where many empires fail, in long-term occupation. But the initial assault was a success, and I would imagine US military training is very effective when it comes to toppling governments.
Culture are hardly supplanted--Muslims in Africa, Pakistan, and Indonesia are culturally miles apart.
One of the reasons Islam was popular when it initially spread was because it DIDN'T supplant local cultures! Initially, Islam didn't supplant religions either. Non-Muslims paid a "jizya" tax, which basically ensured protection under the local amir's banner.
Furthermore, if you look at the rise of the Ottoman empire, it was replete with Christians and Jews that not only worked in the administration of the Sultanate, but held top-level military, judicial, and political appointments.
I guess I'm confused on what they're gaining from general military training. I doubt they have a course on toppling foreign governments outright.
If there is anything to be gained, I feel like they're benefiting from advancements in tactics that defeat conventional and guerilla militaries. All that to say, if there is a connection I'm curious to see what it is.
Same here, recently watched a movie that released here(The Kashmir Files) which essentially showed how kashmiri muslims organised genocide against kashmiri hindus in their own country. Dont think the problem is the Quran as you said but islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem that needs to be tackled.
Without singling you out, why is the suggestion always to reduce consumption as opposed to producing energy in less hostile locales? Current geopolitical events (and associated suffering) are occurring precisely because efforts to produce fossil fuels in the West have been undermined by activists pushing anti-consumption ideology.
> reducing carbon emissions is something we already understand we desperately need to do
The USA emits roughly the same amount of C02 as it did in the mid-1970s. On a per capita basis, the emissions are the lowest since at least the 1960s. This has been achieved largely due to the cost effective production of natural gas using fracking.
At the same time, US environmental regulations lead to lower emissions during production than in other nations. In other words, fossil fuels produced in the US produce less carbon than those produced in other nations.
Advocating against utilizing these energy resources has created massive geopolitical instability, harmed efforts to reduce carbon emissions globally, and inflated costs of all economic activity. Such policy is inconsistent with environmental concerns but is entirely consistent with anti-consumption ideologies.
This is so much worse than even the most pro-russian comment I've seen here. But unsurprisingly the replies you are getting are pretty mild and open to the idea. This is just wild, and it just goes to show how the "this is whataboutism let's focus on russia" rhetoric is so weak. Whenever the actual discussion is about American/European imperialism, the crazy war justifications are dominant. The double standards aren't even subtle at this point
> If "US training" is such a big deal, what the hell happened in Afghanistan?
I’m not sure who is claiming that US training has substantial influence on e.g. the FAMa; the French are (correctly) viewed as the imperialist bogeyman. Hopefully illusions about the Russians will wear off shortly, although given how long it took for public sentiment against France to have any effect I am not optimistic.
> When it comes to problems in the developing world, I think we neglect to highlight Islam's role.
Some generalisation is inevitable but this is really so general as to be useless, and makes no attempt to engage with the situation in the states in question.
> It supplants local cultures and religions and Muslim-dominated countries tend to be caught in a stalemate between popular Islamist regimes and military dictatorship. Egypt is a prime example. Pakistan is looking more and more like a failed state.
It’s not like commentators ignore clearly identifiable problems relating to Islam in the region. One major commonality is the presence of Islamist insurgencies, and that’s hardly neglected by domain experts, local newspapers, or area studies journals. If you were to flesh out this claim more and provide more specifics, you will almost certainly find that commentators do not in fact neglect the factor you identify.
Moreover it’s not like there’s an enormous explanatory lacuna demanding Islam as the explicans. Is it surprising that countries with (several of) a long history of coups, poorly developed constitutional and institutional norms, extreme poverty, rampant violence, poorly developed civilian bureaucracies, and quiescent courts would experience coups? I hardly think so. Islam is not exactly a pre-requisite here.
The countries in question are often governed by régimes other than military dictatorships and populist Islamist régimes. Consider that Sankara was a Burkinabé—or, moving beyond those countries with recent military coups to Nigeria, Buhari or Jonathan. The previous governments in Mali, Gabon and Burkina Faso were not exactly particularly Islamist. They hardly distinguished themselves as particularly populist, and certainly weren’t ‘popular’.
I’m not sure who in Egyptian history you’d classify as a non-military populist Islamist dictatorship apart from Morsi who was in power for a very brief period. Egypt’s situation seems to require an analytic specificity beyond generalisations about the ‘developing world’.
As for Pakistan, it’s far from clear that it looks more like a failed state than previously. The economy is not in a particularly disastrous state (especially compared to e.g. Sri Lanka), Khan barely trampled on the constitution compared to Musharraf (since he didn’t have the chance), and the all-Pakistan services seem to function (insofar as that is the right word) in broadly the same fashion today as they did ten years ago.
To those who find themselves critical of the US here, what would you do differently?
Would you simply stop providing training to African soldiers? Who is then going to fight ISIS and Boko Haram? Or you simply let these groups to their own devices? Or you bring American boots on the ground to fight them?
To those inclined to believe some grand conspiracy theories: it's much simpler than that. The US has limited capabilities. And reading the future is not one of them. You train some soldiers, some might turn bad. You don't train them, thousands of girls get kidnapped and then killed or sold into slavery. There's not perfect solution here.
True. And the moral outrage around russia is so stupid too! What would you do to stop ukraine's nazis right? They just have to interfere in their neighbor's business.
Your argument might have made more sense if the rise of Islamic extremism in the Middle East and Africa wasn't directly related and reactionary to western imperialism. If it was true that the US cared about extremism, it wouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2003. The invasion is what led to the creation of ISIS and gave a huge credibility boost to Al Qaida in the middle east. But hey they had good intentions so it's different from the russians, right? More foreign interference will solve the problem caused by foreign interference.
No, neither did it confirm SA was responsible. In any case, SA itself isn't comparable to Russia or Nazi German as a potential threat to the US, relative to networks "of terror" across multiple countries; eg many taliban training camps are/where in Afganistan, not SA.
I'd be interested to know what actions the US takes other than military training or funding. Groups like ISIS exploit poor and uneducated communities. Investing in infrastructure, jobs,and education sounds like a decent mid- to long-term strategy to strangle their recruitment. This is obviously difficult in countries with a lot of corruption, but those are the same countries where backing militias has unpredictable consequences.
Amazing that after all these years, most importantly the experiment in the 1970s of funding the groups that became the Taliban, Americans haven’t learned their lessons about funding foreign militaries.
Having people you trained and armed turn around to fight against you is obviously not ideal but also the Taliban is much less of a threat than the Soviet Union so it might have been a good trade.
It came to mind a few days ago when I was noticing how Azov in many reputable newspapers is now seemingly being downgraded from 'neo-nazi' to 'right-wing militia'.
To add a little more context, from what I've read they definitely had a large (actual) Nazi element in 2014, but that has been less and less true over the intervening years. The more extreme political leaders were kicked out and they grew in size significantly based on their military success rather than their ideological leanings.
BTW, you are not fooling anyone by repeating the Imran-approved talking point about the allegations of backroom deals between the USG and the Pakistani opposition to topple his government.
I was going to say citation needed but then I googled. Astounding. So.... again we're paying for all this insanity. Imagine if we had spent this 18 billion on ourselves. I dare say that would have been better for ourselves as well as for the people of Pakistan and the whole world since these areas we mess with tend to be major exporters of smaller scale terror as well.
"
Financial aid to Pakistan since the 11 September 2001 attacks. Between 2002–2011, US Congress approved $18 billion in military and economic aid from the United States. However the Pakistan Treasury only received $8.647 billion in direct financial payments.
"
Welcome to what India's trying to tell the US for ages now. I suppose the defense contractors need their money more than fair governments need fair procedures, I suppose. Even if the US wanted to help unconditionally, general (non-military) aid would have at least helped the average citizen of Pakistan somewhat... not weapons.
Maybe you did? What are they buying with that money, or if it's siphoned off where is it sent? Especially military aid, if they don't use it to buy from Russia the money probably goes back to the US, as the nr. one arms exporter by a significant margin (https://www.statista.com/statistics/267131/market-share-of-t...).
With large weapons systems come decades of additional purchases, for training, upgrades, maintenance, spare parts, and an increased chance for buying other systems. That "aid" today can buy a lot of income over time, so rather than aid it actually is a kind of purchase itself.
Googling I see a lot of links telling us how much the US is "giving" in aid. But few of those pages bother mentioning what happens with that money next. "Hoes does the US spend foreign aid" is common (to whom and where does it go), "What does the US buy with foreign aid" is not. How much aid really is free no strings attached? I guess that's most likely for emergency funds after some catastrophe. As I see it, aid more often than not is a purchase too, but few bother finding out what the US purchased. It may be they don't buy anything concrete, but so do businesses investing in PR.
The government was toppled? And you imply this was some sort of military coup. But in reality, the Prime Minister was removed from power, and not through military force. So both your implicit and explicit claims are false.
This may be as an effort to push back against Russian-backed paramilitary groups like Wagner, who have also recently gained notoriety in Ukraine. In Mali, they are helping to liberate the region as the French Colonialists withdraw. The problem with Africa seems to be that they'll sell themselves many times over without really considering the consequences: after all, as China buys up more and more of Africa under the guise of a Belt and Road initiative, how will that jive with Russia, who presumably want to "liberate" the same natural resources that China want?
Why? I don't see the connection between the US training troops in African countries and China's infrastructure plan unless you're saying the infrastructure plan should be opposed militarily if necessary.
By that rational, it would be more relevant to mention the history of western colonialism and regime change both past and present to paint a more comprehensive picture. Including China doesn't really add much.
>The connection is undeniable, in a journalistic sense
What connection? That both are trying to gain more influence in Africa? Is the journalistic connection also obvious with something like the Gates Foundation, which is also trying to gain more influence in Africa?
Is there an argument, if you zoom far enough out, they are both strategic powerplays one military, one economic, but both with the same aim to increase influence? Especially relevant if you follow the arguments in here about the US being on the decline and China on the ascendency:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8
It's hard to see how the US's more divisive approach can beat China's more inclusive one. I assume the reasons for this, as mentioned above, tie into the different setups, America with a huge military/industrial complex and China with a much better infrastructure track record (e.g. compare the high speed rail networks in both countries).
Gross simplifications obviously, but maybe the argument still holds?
Disclaimer, not read the WSJ article due to paywall.
> Damiba is just the latest in a carousel of coup leaders in West Africa trained by the U.S. military as the U.S. has pumped in more than $1 billion in security assistance to promote “stability” in the region. Since 2008, U.S.-trained officers have attempted at least nine coups (and succeeded in at least eight) across five West African countries, including Burkina Faso (three times), Guinea, Mali (three times), Mauritania, and the Gambia
>...
> “I can’t shake the feeling that his education in the United States somehow influenced his actions,” wrote Sanneh’s former NDU mentor Jeffrey Meiser. “I can’t help but wonder if simply imprinting our foreign students with the ‘American program’ is counterproductive and unethical.”
It still misteriously ignores belt and road, despite the importance that Chinese infrastructure has had on the country
from another piece
> In Ghana, the scale of Chinese-funded projects has been rapidly rising over the last two decades. China’s most significant investment in the region was the construction of the 400 megawatt Bui Dam in 2013. Now, Beijing is the primary source of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the country. In 2018 Ghana negotiated a $2 billion deal to allow China’s Sinohydro Corporation to invest in infrastructure in exchange for access to precious elements, namely bauxite. Apart from financing ports, roads and railways, China is also making its way in building telecom infrastructure in the continent. A recent example is the opening of a national data centre in the Western African nation of Senegal on 22 June. The Export-Import Bank of China financed the centre with technical backing from Huawei, responsible for about 50% of Africa’s 3G networks and 70% of its 4G networks.
https://www.firstpost.com/world/as-chinas-belt-and-road-init...
Why would the editorial line if these publications not want the reader to associate US friendly coups with Belt And Road is left as a task to the reader
A general issue is that stable civilian control of the military forces is a somewhat difficult thing to achieve, so if that control is not stable, training the military can substantially increase the risk of military coup. This is why in many countries (e.g. Soviet Union, Russia, China etc.) state security is embedded into the military on all levels. This of course creates new problems.
The US wants friendly governments, and if that’s not possible, unstable ones. There is a plethora of examples mostly in Central and South America, and the Middle East.
But the US is not the only one doing this. It’s been common practice for imperialist powers for centuries.
>Why do people continue to believe nonsense like this?
We've seen it happen a number of times? Graduates of the School of the Americas have committed countless human rights violations throughout and lead numerous military dictatorship throughout the Americas.
>The US wants stable governments, not unstable ones.
Civilian led governments often aren't stable. They can suddenly vote to not side with the US.
> Civilian led governments often aren't stable. They can suddenly vote to not side with the US.
If we actually cared about pro-American governments over democracy then we wouldn't have run democratic elections in Iraq, a government that's now rather anti America.
Despite the Iraqi leader being against the US presence in Iraq, US oil companies are still making huge profits in Iraq and the US military is still in Iraq as an "advisory role" even more powerful than the one mentioned in the article.
Plus, I can't imagine it's easy to create a truly pro-US government in Iraq no matter how hard you try.
If that were the case it wouldn't have even attempted implementing the Bretton Woods system because it is inherently unstable and creates unstable governments.
Instead of trying to maximize trade imbalances between countries one should have adopted a system that minimizes trade imbalances between countries.
The reason this isn't done is because you would rather be the king of nations over other poor nations than if you were an equal and insignificant country among many.
Don't extrapolate to the past into the future. The soviet union collapsed which was a turning point in US external interference. We were trying to prevent the spread of communism (which would often backfire).
The US has historically and currently benefited much more from unstable governments. Why do you think they've invested so much in making governments unstable? Especially if they're "unfriendly" to US business interests
The West/ US interventions were always supported by the population, that's why the amount of casualties from US/West military is so low.
In many cases there are barely boots on the ground and the actual work is done by civilians protesting en masse. ( They were already protesting before interventions).
It doesn't mean there are no casualties, but that's mostly lowered by the interventions ( by lowering authoritarian military strength)
Historically is different than currently. Historically the fight was against the spread of communism and so we propped up dictatorships all over the world that would prevent the spread of communism in their countries (which often backfired). Currently that is no longer the case because communism is basically dead for all intents and purposes.
It seems like the US wants weak trading partners with lots of natural resources more than it wants stability. There's a long history of them interfering and shaping regimes in countries where the government was left-wing, anti-US or linked to China/USSR, rich in oil/minerals/crops, or threatening to form a large trading bloc. South America in the early-mid 19th century, the Middle East more recently. Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, these are not countries that US intervention has helped to stabilise.
Shaping the politics of other countries with soft power is normal diplomacy. Don't confuse that with pushing for violent overthrow of the governments of other countries.
>In what was known as Operation Cyclone, the U.S. government provided weapons and funding for a collection of warlords and several factions of jihadi guerrillas known as the Afghan mujahideen fighting to overthrow the Afghan government.
Iraq:
>The CIA launched DBACHILLES, a coup d'état operation against the Iraqi government, recruiting Ayad Allawi, who headed the Iraqi National Accord, a network of Iraqis who opposed the Saddam Hussein government, as part of the operation. The network included Iraqi military and intelligence officers but was penetrated by people loyal to the Iraqi government.[349][350][351] Also using Ayad Allawi and his network, the CIA directed a government sabotage and bombing campaign in Baghdad between 1992 and 1995.
Libya:
>France, the United States and the United Kingdom launched the 2011 military intervention in Libya with Operation Odyssey Dawn, US and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[404] the French and British Air Forces[405] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces.
Syria:
>Starting in 2013, the U.S. provided training, weapons and cash to Syrian vetted moderate rebels,[411][412] and in 2014, the Supreme Military Council.
I'm quite aware of history, but if you were aware of current events you wouldn't be agreeing with this. This hasn't been the policy of the US since the soviet union fell. It's been over 30 years since this was the policy of the US.
You could argue probabilities, causation vs. correlation, etc. - but the data on which countries have had their military trained by the U.S., vs. which countries have had military coups is fairly black-and-white. And the WSJ is not exactly a left-wing peacenic paper, to have knee-jerk or click-bait reasons to oppose U.S. training of foreign militaries.
> The US wants stable governments...
That line of argument tends to assume that the U.S. is both monolithic, and highly competent in the planning & conduct of its foreign policy. Vs. looking at history...
At this point it's safe to assume that this is always the unstated part of the plan. Keeping individual areas destabilized
1. decreases nations' ability to organize,
2. prevents them from properly utilizing their natural resources,
3. reduces possible competition at the global economic level,
4. increases the the possibility of extracting resources and labor from them due to an increase of various factors like economic desperation and political variability.
It serves fully developed countries' interests better to keep everyone else down so they can be exploited. Negotiating with blocs rather than newly instated and flexible rulers annoying and difficult.
This is just a typical conspiracy theory to explain the mess that is reality. It borrows aspects of the real world:
1. Predatory resource extraction from poorer countries,
2. Cases where western militaries / intelligence agencies have helped overthrow democratically elected governments,
Etc
But! Then it fuses these pieces and makes it seem like they are part of a larger plan. A plan where "someone" has incentive, lack of ethics and almost all powerful capability to manipulate events.
Thing is, masterminds don't exist. Opportunists do.
*It doesn't serve developed nations interests to keep everyone else down.* Look at globalization. How much money has western companies made from utilizing manufacturing in Asia? More than they would extracting some minerals mined by child laborers...
My experience is different. These things are planned. There is a grand plan. The planners are incompetent nincompoots, though, and things rarely go according to plan.
I've been in enough power positions to see that grand plans and grant ambitions do exist, as do lots and lots of conspiracies. It's just that the external conspiracy theories rarely line up with actual conspiracies. What's going on inside is usually far, far stupider than even the conspiracy theory.
> far, far stupider than even the conspiracy theory
That was my big takeaway from reading a bunch of "insider" books after the 2008 crash. The banks thought they were getting away with an great scheme (not a conspiracy, per se), but had the common human inability to properly model out the logical chain of implications over the long term (and perhaps a touch of "emperor's clothes" preventing proper risk assessment within larger organizations). Meanwhile the market punters were caught up in a frothy bubble ("this time is truly different!") which clouded their perception of reality, which led to all kinds of bullshit hype in the media. There were outliers, of course (e.g. I rememeber an eye-opening article in Harper's in ~2006 which was extremely dire in its outlook, and of course there were various people who were fortunate with their shorts), but the folks bought into the alternate reality tended to ignore warnings, given that their money was invested in the fever dream (also perhaps trusting the authority of the banks to have put together a low risk product, without truly understanding it).
In short, there's no need to conjure up an illuminati when you have all of the various standard fallacies of human thinking to work with.
> In short, there's no need to conjure up an illuminati when you have all of the various standard fallacies of human thinking to work with.
You definitely don't need an Illuminati-esque mastermind when the participants in the system have similar goals, motivations, and capabilities. In retrospect an event might look coordinated but really it's just an aggregate of every participant acting entirely independently but according to similar constraints.
a) Nobody not even POTUS is in a position to even have such a 'Grand Plan' in this regard.
b) Yes, some 'Grand Planners' exist, and fully agree that they are often a mess.
c) There is no plan to destabilize Africa. Totally the opposite. The plan is definitely to bring stability, because everyone wins there. It's in that endeavour 'they fail' in 1000 different 'unforeseen' ways. Those systems are arguably inherently chaotic and will be for some time.
There were plenty of well-documented plans, mostly by oil companies, to destabilize African countries. The idea is to keep a level of corruption high enough to where you can get lucrative profits through bribes, but not high enough to have an open war zone and where contracts you made are enforced.
This isn't a conspiracy; it's well-documented.
Good book: Poisoned Wells: The Dirty Politics of African Oil
Nobody wants chaos, especially not corrupt people.
Saudi Arabia is effectively 'fully institutionalized corruption backed by the US Army' and it's almost 'model'.
The Oil Flows, the Leader does whatever he wants with his cut, as long as there is stability and order.
Instability leads to failed contracts, downfall of leaders knocks over dominoes, attracts attention, people are arrested and go public, war etc..
This idea that somehow 'an Oil Company' could actively keep something a bit broken but not fully broken gives way, way too much agency to them. They are not that smart or powerful.
They would all be happy just to pay 'The Guy' his cut in perpetuity.
Arguably, Russia is such a country. Putin et. al. take their cut, the plebes get some scraps, everything is cool.
Everyone was willing to look the other way at his minor intransigence.
Until he crossed the line, and now he has to be dealt with.
All he had to do was take his billions and literally not invade anywhere. He could do anything he wanted in his borders.
As you can see all of Europe is roiling as the result of chaos, nobody wants it - not Putin, not Europe, not any Oil Company.
I have been trying to take over the Illuminati brand, since discovering that actually no one is in control. Have survived enough psychological trauma to do a way better job than whoever is attempting it right now.
Not an ego thing. I just find it embarrassing that this is the best purported enlightened people can do.
It's also possible to go too far in the direction of seeing only tactics but never strategy, and taking countries publicly stated goals and motives at face value. Zbigniew Brzezinski was one of our most influential contemporary foreign policy thinkers - here's the NYT reviewing his book 'The Grand Chessboard':
Brzezinski ... describes a very forbidding situation in the years ahead if the United States does not make more permanent the dominance it now has over a vast area of the world. "This huge, oddly shaped Eurasian chessboard -- extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok -- provides the setting for 'the game,'" Brzezinski says. "If the middle space can be drawn increasingly into the expanding orbit of the West (where America preponderates), if the southern region is not subjected to domination by a single player, and if the East is not unified in a manner that prompts the expulsion of America from its offshore bases, America can then be said to prevail. But if the middle space rebuffs the West, becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor, then America's primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically."[1]
In other words, for the US to continue its unipolar domination requires the lack of cohesive blocs dominated by other great powers. Obviously in this context Brzezinski is alluding to Russia and China in the Eurasian 'chessboard', but the logic is broadly applicable around the globe. There's also a difference between controlling events like a puppeteer pulling strings and the more common scenario where our actions help catalyze events we may not have intended but were nonetheless predictable and seen as not worth the effort or trade-offs to avoid.
Brzezinski is a very good example considering his “Arc of Crisis” strategy was to literally keep the Islamic states on the periphery of the Soviet Union destabilized. Not exactly a conspiracy, actual US policy.
You seem to be misunderstanding what Brzezinski said to and portray it as having the opposite meaning. The point of the "Arc of Crisis" speech was that the U.S. needed to help _stabilize_ the area, because a destabilized region could fall to the Soviets. This was in response to American concerns that instability in its ally Iran could spill over to other allies as well. Here's an article from the time[1]:
> High‐ranking White House and Defense Department officials argue that other key nations in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are prone to the same domestic disorders that have struck Iran and that Moscow seems increasingly inclined to exploit these difficulties.
> As a result, while some middle‐level specialists in the State Department caution against exaggerating the impact of the crisis in Iran and complain that the White House is in danger of creating a Vietnam‐type “domino theory,” ‘the Administration is said to be fashioning its policy toward Iran and its neighbors in regional terms, treating the area as “an arc of crisis,” a description used recently by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Mr. Carter's national security assistant.
> In a speech to the Foreign Policy Association last week, Mr. Brzezinski said “the arc of crisis” stretched “along the shores of the Indian Ocean with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation.”
> “The resulting political chaos,” he added, “could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries.”
I find it ironic that the very people who dismiss everything they cannot comprehend as “conspiracy theory”, because it does not fit their conditioned frame of mind; are not all that different than the other end of the spectrum that is convinced everything is fake.
It’s similar to how people dismiss that TV (among other things) can be used to brainwash/condition/ manipulate people, while being totally blind to one of the biggest industries in all of humanity exists on that very premise … advertising.
But when both occur together, they become extremely powerful: once you start buying into "everything is a lie", you are free to pick whatever claim on TV is the most convenient, no matter how much evidence there is for the other side.
you are forgeting all the concrete evidence that the opportunists DO have access to power.
look no further than the leaked usa diplomat cables. for example, brazil found new oil reserves. president announces it will be nationalized to pay for new education reform. cables then show conversation about oil companies wanting that resource and that the local diplomats must "solve it". later brazil have a senate coup where president is removed on bogus charges and very first act if new president is to sell rights to the oil reserves bellow market value.
so, yeah, both your comment and the one you replied to are correct. it's all oportunistic, but the opportunists are the defacto masterminds of the power machine somehow.
That said, I think this type of quasi-conspiratorial narrative building (like parent) tends to exist because there is no credible good guy theory currently.
Flawed as it was the 90s neoliberalish, globalish ideology was... at least it was an ideology. It had a a sense of good and bad. It had some promises of better futures. Etc.
What we have now is "stuff happens, sometimes that sucks."
> What we have now is "stuff happens, sometimes that sucks."
I think this is exactly the scenario where conspiracy theories thrive. It’s really hard for people to accept that stuff happens and sometimes that sucks. We need to assign a “reason”. Preferably a reason that makes us feel like it wouldn’t or couldn’t happen to us.
I meant, there isn't a current ideological rationale for trade/development/etc. There isn't a vision for where it leads. Etc.
I mentioned 90s neliberalism-ish policies. Well... those were a promise of a better world. So was communism, democratic socialism, etc. They had visions of the future. Rationales for how things get better.
Now... There isn't. Trade or security are just about trade and security. They aren't part of a bigger whole. They aren't about a vision for anything. There's no reassurance that this is good for Africans, or even for Americans. It just is.
Islamism, as mentioned up thread, is a powerful ideology that is thriving.
There's also social justice and related movements in the West, but that's internal ideological development in liberalism, not something that can be sold to the world.
China's brand of profit-oriented authoritarianism state capitalism is also spreading around the world, though. Including Africa.
It is quite interesting seeing these comments, I wonder what the age of the commenter is, these older fellows in the thread and elsewhere might have longer memories and remember things such as
> "Protecting the free flow of Africa's natural resources to the global market is one of AFRICOM'S guiding principles"
few problems with your reasoning (and reality is a lot more sinister):
> Thing is, masterminds don't exist. Opportunists do.
I agree. But an incentive, or a grand hidden plan, etc are not required. What conspiracy theorists see as "the man behind the curtain" is just a side effect of the system (this is where they are wrong and fail). This is also the ultimate defense of the system because accusing a single individual/group of a hidden agenda can easily be dismissed (it isn't logic), they are "nutters" etc (and everyone sane will agree). But a system that promises freedom/equality, etc but produces predictable losers of one group ("the global South", "the poor", "the deplorables", "the plebs"), while the other group is able to bastardize them as part of the design is actually more wrong and hypocritical than a system that is doing the same but being honest about how they inflict terror.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich." -- Peter Ustinov
...
> How much money has western companies made from utilizing manufacturing in Asia? More than they would extracting some minerals mined by child laborers...
Western companies have been very successful utilizing child labor in Asia and only the most high profile companies are being called out (because nobody cares about a no-name org from the West with only 50 employees being responsible for chemical burns of Bangladeshi kids limbs dying fabric for the fashion industry, ... This story only ever gets clicks as when a company the size of Nike is involved). The power systems in Asia are great at disappearing people silently[1]. Literal slavery still exists in all parts of the world. And there is no industry immune to it, e.g. if you enjoy seafood like me there is no way you haven't eaten fish that was caught by slaves (and if you're vegan you probably consumed fruit and veg picked by slaves)
There really is a long established track record of the US government and CIA doing these exact things, especially in Latin America, and in my experience at least, countries are creatures of habit. Why should anyone believe they aren't playing similar games in Africa today? The absence of an easily identifiable "someone" is not much proof to the contrary, especially when actions on the ground match up with the phenomenon referenced.
>But! Then it fuses these pieces and makes it seem like they are part of a larger plan. A plan where "someone" has incentive, lack of ethics and almost all powerful capability to manipulate events.
>Thing is, masterminds don't exist. Opportunists do.
You are forgetting that everyone is consciously or subconsciously wanting these things. You don't need a single super villain, you just need a critical mass of people who want a benefit for themselves at the expense of people they are never going to meet.
In Germany the amount of people that think they have a god given right to cheap meat and cheap oil is astonishing and they clearly don't care how that end result is achieved, they just demand that their politicians do something about it.
The idea that Africa being poor and unstable is related to cheap goods in Europe and the US is complete fiction.
Furthermore, you rate unconscious desires of westerners over the actions of Africans. What would have to occur for you to attribute a coup in an African country to the actual human beings who carried it out?
I am almost certain these masterminds exist. There are just very few countries with these kinds of imperial ambitions left. It doesn’t take much to find examples of French and US intelligence and militaries interfering in various countries in South America, Africa and Indo-China for the purpose of securing mining rights etc. The genocide in Rwanda involved ethnic militias backed by / advised by French and US on either side with the French foreign legion training the genocidaires for example. There are well documented cases where French plots to secure copper mining rights through bribery were uncovered by cia counterintelligence. Most German heavy industry when operating in Africa / South East Asia / Middle East does so by mix of bribery, political interference and cooperation with intelligence fronts like the GTZ. Africa has countries that still use the Franc and whose infrastructure is firmly in the hands of large French cooperations.
We are just witnessing in Ukraine how years of foreign interference can go horribly wrong.
A coup supported by the west in 2014, a color (orange) revolution before that. In both cases there was overt support for the anti-government protests and vetting and planning for the US favored successor (“Fuck the EU”).
A former Georgian prime minister (same that got Georgia into an armed conflict with Russia and who came into power in Georgia by a flower revolution) became head of Odessian Oblast with US support some time after 2014.
Various paramilitary groups were funded / backed by Russia / US / other people. Among them obviously the “peoples republics”.
Years of investment in “pro”-democracy NGOs many of which are known to be affiliated with the State Department and intelligence fronts, to the point that many maidan protesters / organizers were essentially paid to be there.
The Crimean referendum happened under Russian influence obviously.
The whole Nordstream 1/2 project came into existence because Ukraine was annoying to deal with and some German politicians were more than a bit too friendly and open to Russian suggestions.
In turn there was a lot of planning by the US happening to slow down Nordstream 2.
There are a lot more examples like that. Ukraine is an excellent case study how large blocks / nations follow through on their foreign policy goals over decades.
> A coup supported by the west in 2014, a color (orange) revolution before that. In both cases there was overt support for the anti-government protests and vetting and planning for the US favored successor (“Fuck the EU”).
And what were the events that led up this revolution? Walk me through the details.
> In turn there was a lot of planning by the US happening to slow down Nordstream 2.
And now Nordstream 2 is cancelled. Are you saying Putin is working with western oil and gas companies? Had Russia not invaded Ukraine last month, Nordstream 2 wouldn’t have been cancelled and gas would continue to flow into Europe.
The 2014 one was basically an association agreement with EU fell through, in part because they / the IMF were unwilling to extend a line of credit without massive cuts to government subsidized gas / energy and Russia threatened to cancel the Tarif agreements between Ukraine / Russia (as they otherwise would have given unrestricted access to EU goods to Russia. Russia instead gave a ~15 billion credit. Various NGOs then followed a typical playbook, occupy a central square, agent provocateurs showed up and created violent incidents, the Kiev mayor ordered a violent removal of protestors in order to install christmas decorations. Some protestor was shot, turned into a martyr, the investigation who was responsible has been inconclusive afaik. Various neo nazi groups (right sector) started arming themselves and attacking security forces, trying to storm government buildings. In total I think roughly ~120 protestors and ~20-40 security forces were killed. Janukovitch narrowly escaped the storming of his residence. Orange Revolution I don’t really remember any details.
I answered above in relationship to foreign interference and how sophisticated it can be. Ukraine has been of interest since the end of WWII to American intelligence, with many former Ukrainian Nazi Collaborators and Resistance fighters being approached by British and US intelligence.
Nordstream is in many ways just s bargaining chip, strong German and Russian interest in it, US obviously opposed. Instigating as much instability in Ukraine and making sure that German, Russian cooperation becomes untenable, was surely part of the US plan. Germany will now import US / US client states LNG and build corresponding terminals. US imposed various sanctions and the pipeline was held up for various reasons even before the war started. Obviously that doesn’t justify Russian aggression. This is just to say that the whole Gas thing is an excellent example of foreign interference in a country both in Germany (Russia & US) and in Ukraine (Eu & Russia & US). Note how it also played a role in the maidan revolution.
All of this to say, if Russia hadn’t invaded, Germany and Europe would be moving right along with buying Russian gas.
The problem with this theory is this idea that somehow an EU-aligned Ukraine represents a threat to Russia or Russian energy. It doesn’t. All the foreign interference in the world is irrelevant.
The truth of the matter is that Putin thought that gas supplies to Europe were a sufficient bargaining chip to prevent the EU and an in-fighting United States (thanks China/Russia/Iran, appreciate the taste of our own medicine) from acting while he took over a resource rich and to Putin, historically important Ukraine. Putin tells you this. He wrote about it and has talked about it endlessly. There is no mystery here. No grand “foreign interference” conspiracy. The US has no reason to care if Russia supplies energy to Europe except to the extent that Russia then goes on to cause chaos and trouble elsewhere. This is evident by the actions of the US which have been appeasement after appeasement.
The US propped up pro-western governments in Ukraine and sentiment as a wedge issue in particular between Germany and Russia, but also France Russia. They invested upwards of 5 billion to do so. Relationships between Russia - France - Germany were good in the early 2000s they began to deteriorate from 2004 (Orange revolution) onwards. It has been a long standing strategic goal of both the British empire and now the American Empire to keep these three countries non-aligned. Both project power by controlling sea trade routes, an economically integrated Russia would eventually significantly reduce American influence.
The natural resources of the Russian Empire / Soviet Union / Russia together with the industrial base of Germany and France would have been no match at any time of the 20th Century. Both world wars were fought in part about gaining control of the Ukranian (then Russian) resources. The separate peace of Brest-Litovsk split off essentially Ukraine and made it a protectorate of Germany. In many ways the collapse of the Soviet Union and the attempts at integrating former parts of the Russian empire are analogous.
But yeah this doesn’t explain putins actions. I would mostly agree with your analysis of his motivations.
It's not going so well for Ukrainians, and it remains to be seen for the Russians, but recent events have been a triumph huge success for those particular foreigners whose primary goal is selling more weapons manufactured in USA.
It’s going much better than even the most optimistic assessment. I fail to see how selling more American weapons (many of which are being given away?) is more economically advantageous than like, not having a destroyed Ukraine. Maybe you can walk me further through the logic here. Who is making these decisions? Was it Trump when he fought to get Nordstrom’s 2 cancelled? Or is it Biden? Or…?
Even those weapons that are "given away" are first purchased by USA taxpayers. This whole dynamic was observed long ago by Eisenhower. Probably he could have done something to resist it, but puppets like Trump and Biden have very little say in the matter. The most they can do is pick among options when TPTB suffer from a lack of unanimity: see our pathetic withdrawal from Afghanistan. The last guy who really stood up to this, got shot in Dallas.
A stable prospering Ukraine is of no more value to the actual decision makers than a stable prospering DR Congo.
Well then there isn’t much to do nor any reason to care is there?
> see our pathetic withdrawal from Afghanistan
Eh withdrawal was fine. Needed to get out of their ASAP. A little chaotic but the military (woah Biden made the MIC do something they didn’t want to do???!) didn’t think he’d actually order them out since everyone has talked about it for years and they were too far invested to cut their losses.
But sure. The Us wants to sell more weapons. So does Russia. The Russian MIC started the war so Putin would have to buy and upgrade equipment. So there ya have it.
This leads one to suspect trolling. The withdrawal was pathetic because it didn't take place two decades earlier, after ObL left Afghanistan. Also, because it has been followed by the "asset freeze" and associated starve-the-children policy.
Russia isn't led by its MIC; it is led by the dictator that USA installed. Putin, who came to power via USA manipulation, is now opposed by USA manipulation. In this, he takes his place on a long list of world leaders:
Victoriano Huerta,
Raoul Cédras,
Jean-Bertrand Aristide (actually democratically elected, but later removed and reinstalled numerous times in some weird Clintonian game),
Augusto Pinochet,
Suharto,
Rafael Trujillo,
Saddam Hussein,
Mobutu Sese Seko,
Ngo Dinh Diem,
Dương Văn Minh,
Nguyễn Khánh,
Fernando Romeo Lucas García
I'm probably missing a lot here. Especially I think there are many African leaders who could be added to this list. If the fondest dreams of CIA reptiles come true and they somehow manage to replace Putin with some other awful person, we can be sure that eventual opposition to that person's rule will fuel even more sales of armaments.
> The withdrawal was pathetic because it didn't take place two decades earlier, after ObL left Afghanistan. Also, because it has been followed by the "asset freeze" and associated starve-the-children policy.
I don't follow this chain of reasoning. Bin Laden left Afghanistan for Pakistan, the closest realistic staging area was Afghanistan (if you're going to attack this from a "get Bin Laden" angle).
> Russia isn't led by its MIC; it is led by the dictator that USA installed. Putin, who came to power via USA manipulation, is now opposed by USA manipulation. In this, he takes his place on a long list of world leaders:
Speaking of trolling...
If the US is so powerful that it can easily install whoever it wants as a puppet leader in any country, including Russia, then you should go grab a beer and relax and just enjoy your life because there is nothing you can do and nothing for you to be concerned with. The US is all-powerful and all-seeing.
Alternatively, you can not peddle very ridiculous conspiracy theories and not waste my time.
You are native. I know for a fact that these things are planned, not just in short, but in very long term plans too. You may not plan ahead, but I can assure you there are many people that plan for even the century and beyond.
The farther out the plan, the more likely it will need to be adjusted, but people who plan so far out in advance have an extreme advantage; because people like you do not plan ahead and therefore do not act to affect or are even able to effectively counter the future they have planned for you, you are merely a passenger on a rail that is taking you where others have determined you shall go.
However, you are correct, it is not a “mastermind” even when it may appear so, it is always an organization, one with a life expectancy beyond the event horizon of individual people.
Seeing how poorly the US seems to be handling China, it does not look like a long thought out plan. At this point the only hope is that China peters out before their coming population implosion and collapses under that pressure. Essentially a strategy without a plan..or is that the plan all along?
USA policy in Eastern Europe over the last two decades seems designed to push Russia into a subservient "little brother" role with China. If China is the "real" opponent, why did we just give them exclusive access to all of Russia's natural resources?
I don't buy it. Developed countries want stability in their allies/trading partners, unless they are actively at war or see another state as a threat. I doubt the US sees many threats in Africa. The crucial thing is though that historically nobody has really cared from where such (pro-western) stability came: if it was from a democratic government, fine - but if not, also fine.
> Developed countries want stability in their allies/trading partners
If you take a look at our history and our actions with our "allies" and "trading partners", do you see that to be true? Say for example with our immediate neighbours like Mexico? How about our history with Haiti the moment they became independent? Does it seem like we wanted stability for them?
How about our history with Panama, Granada, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Columbia, etc? I'm assuming everyone is familiar with the history of why and how the term banana republic got coined.
Oh, how about our history with Cuba?
It seems to me that your statement is not an accurate representation of history for those specific cases. Do you feel that's a fair perception of reality?
Yes, I think the US did/does want stability in Mexico. I think historically the US has actually been quite good at ensuring stability in other countries. Things like the Marshall plan were not altruistic and are a clear example of this. It's also possible that you want to occasionally destabilise a country as a threat to others (Vietnam?) to make them stay stable (=status quo). If you just look at the unstable results you're probably ignoring the many successful examples of stability that the US created. Again, often using and supporting terrifying regimes. Often not. Typical empire.
I make no claim that the US a) always stabilises countries b) doesn't use brutal methods to stabilise countries c) always acts in a purely rational manner.
> I think historically the US has actually been quite good at ensuring stability in other countries.
I'm now unsure whether your meaning of "stability" is equivalent to my meaning of "stability". I'm curious what is your basis for this thinking and whether you have a factual basis for "has actually been quite good". What measurement statistic would be reasonable to use for measuring that? Lets re-visit some counter facts that will be likely to be raised. How would you quantify these in opposition to your claim?
In Argentina, military forces overthrew the democratically elected President Isabel Perón in the 1976 Argentine coup d'état, starting the military dictatorship of General Jorge Rafael Videla, known as the National Reorganization Process. Both the coup and the following authoritarian regime was eagerly endorsed and supported by the United States government[5] with US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger paying several official visits to Argentina during the dictatorship
The US government supported the 1971 coup led by General Hugo Banzer that toppled President Juan José Torres of Bolivia.[9][10] Torres had displeased Washington by convening an "Asamblea del Pueblo" (Assembly of the People), in which representatives of specific proletarian sectors of society were represented (miners, unionized teachers, students, peasants), and more generally by leading the country in what was perceived as a left wing direction. Banzer hatched a bloody military uprising starting on August 18, 1971, that succeeded in taking the reins of power by August 22, 1971. After Banzer took power, the US provided extensive military and other aid to the Banzer dictatorship.[11][12] Torres, who had fled Bolivia, was kidnapped and assassinated in 1976 as part of Operation Condor, the US-supported campaign of political repression and state terrorism by South American right-wing dictators.[13][14][15]
US-backed[16] 1964 Brazilian coup d'état against social democrat João Goulart. Under then-President John F. Kennedy, the US sought to "prevent Brazil from becoming another China or Cuba", a policy which was carried forward under Lyndon B. Johnson and which led to US military support for the coup in April 1964
After the democratic election of President Salvador Allende in 1970, an economic war ordered by President Richard Nixon,[19] among other things, caused the 1973 Chilean coup d'état with the involvement of the CIA[20] due to Allende's democratic socialist leanings. What followed was the decades-long US-backed military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.
Peasants and workers (mostly of indigenous descent) revolt during the first half of the 20th century due to harsh living conditions and the abuse from landlords and the government-supported American United Fruit Company. This revolt was repressed, but led to the democratic election of Jacobo Arbenz. Arbenz was overthrown during the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, endorsed by the United States
In 1912, during the Banana Wars period, the U.S. occupied Nicaragua as a means of protecting American business interests and protecting the rights that Nicaragua granted to the United States to construct a canal there.[38] The intervention, utilizing the U.S. Marine Corps, was sparked by a rebellion that opposed the United States. After quelling the rebellion, the U.S. continued occupying Nicaragua until 1933, when President Herbert Hoover officially ended the occupation.[39]
After the Sandinista Revolution that overthrew pro-American dictator[40] Anastasio Somoza Debayle, Nicaragua fought the Contra guerrillas supported by the United States.
I think this is very deserving of a response, and I'd agree I'm possibly using 'stability' in a way that needs to be much more rigorously defined. Not sure if I'll get the time/energy to do that though, unfortunately.
France spended billions of euros to fight islamist groups in Mali at the demand of the government. No resources worth the billions France spended in Mali
Can’t that be done in parallel to parent’s claims ? By helping the gov. France secures its influence on the area and makes sure French company’s business is safe.
For instance from a quick search Mali seems bound to Veolia for its water distribution network building. And I’d assume it is or will go the same for electricity, transportation etc. where anytime a big contract needs to be passed with an external technology provider, excluding French companies from the call won’t be an option.
PS: to add, French companies entering these kind of deals will usually be predatory and make sure the gov. is under enough pressure that they can’t just move to another provider. Development will only happen within a tight control of the situation by external debtors.
> By helping the gov. France secures its influence on the area and makes sure French company’s business is safe.
That's not how things played out in real life, in fact the exact opposite is true. There is now a very strong anti-French sentiment in Mali (in part exacerbated by Russia), and France lost a huge part of the influence they had in the whole region.
It looks to me like France/Mali gov relations took a turn after the 2020 coup ?
All in all I can totally imagine Malian population having an anti-French sentiment, while their government is in bed with French entities.
Do you mean the second coup from 2021? That’s when France started to have clear difficulties to deal with the Malian government, the coup was in May, Macron announced the planned end of the operation in June IIRC due to issues related to the new government.
In any case it’s a quite complicated topic, but it’s not one government being in bed with French entities. You have multiple groups fighting for territory and resources in the region for their own interest, France went there to support the government fight against Islamist groups by demand of Mali. And you now have a lot of Wagner mercenaries too (see https://www.csis.org/analysis/tracking-arrival-russias-wagne... for example. Trigger warning: be ready to read some horrifying details if you look at recent events…).
You can read about the Operation Barkhane article on Wikipedia it has lot of context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane
(I would recommend the French article if you read French).
There was a general opposition to French forces, from part of the population since the beginning which is to be expected. If you go a bit more into the details you will see that Russia took the opportunity to start an information war in the region to push against French forces, as a soft evidence you can see that protesters started asking for a Russian intervention in 2019 (in French, sorry https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2020/01/10/au-mali-le...).
That has also been communicated by Macron as a reason to stop their operation and leave the region (he made public speeches clearly pointing to Russia without explicitly saying it’s name, you can easily find them online and official translations).
I only spent about 20 minutes looking this up. Western nations overthrew Gaddafi in Libya in 2011. Less than two years after they're mostly done in Libya, they roll those forces over to Mali and get Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta in as acting president. NATO/UN forces had a hand in both situations. Western nations were just rolling our already funded and armed forces through the region to set things back up for proper resource and money extraction. This is all on wikipedia.
When I say "our" forces I mean any people who are holding weapons provided by us, eating food provided by us and working towards goals that are set by us. How all of that is funneled to them I have no idea.
Now that the west instated former leader of Mali was ousted France wanted to re-de-stabilize again it seems. It might or might not be worth it.
I should have stated it more as an opinion rather than fact but I stand by it. It's hard to believe that the US has so much intelligence yet we're unable to predict the guys we're training are going to attempt to take over the country. It's also not hard to understand that if we're committing billions of dollars to a war effort there isn't someone or a group of someone who have a hugely vested interest in either keeping the status quo for existing streams of income or removing some impediment in a potential stream of income. Those streams mostly don't go to the governments themselves, rather they go to companies headed by well connected individuals who somehow are able to drive policy and decisions either directly or indirectly.
On the flip side of this, you might have competing interests from other nations as well so it may not be as clear cut. It's no longer border expansion, annexation and "this country" vs "that country". Instead now we have nameless rebels or terrorists (depending on who's side their on) who then sign deals and feed money and resources to their "sponsor countries", or get loans for construction, or some other financial games that are far more opaque.
I have no more specific information, this is all broad strokes based on what I've seen and read. Maybe I'm wrong.
Gravel Institute marketing itself as a counterweight to PragerU is about the most honest thing they've done, because they lie just as much and in similar ways as PragerU likes to.
No country act on others for charity or humanitarian purposes. France was in Mali because France have a long colonial history in Africa and need African's resources. Russian Fed. try to bring back relations from the URSS era in Africa and get a better welcome because in the past they do not colonize Africa so their actions are less badly seen by local populations.
France was one of the less oppressive colonizers in Africa, but still left a significant trail of blood and suffering behind so while with Mali there was an agreement because western-created (yes, you read correctly) "islamic" militias are worse for Malian than French colonial legacy, though when Russia step-in it was and perhaps still is considered better: they do not really have means to colonize, they can just make agreements less unfair perhaps than western countries.
And that's happen almost everywhere, China is far less welcomed because various populations already experience China BRI policies and so the news they are not much friendly than the west is already spread. You do not need more resources than just history. The worst western colonizer were, from the more bloody and oppressive:
- Dutch & Belgian & British
- Germans & Italians & Spaniards
- Frenches & Portuguese
Chinese are "new" outside China, so are Russians and Russians are still seen a bit as Soviet witch to gain influences was far lighter than anyone else outside their borders.
I don't agree with you ranking.
Read about French behavior in colonial south-east Asia, like Vietnam.
I don't think, it is better than Britain behavior in India.
They still not have done a genocide (like British with USA native Americans, or Spain in south America many years before) also for France colonies was and some still are part of the State, so their Citizens get French nationality witch does not compensate their oppression, but let them potentially emigrate far more easily and becoming French Citizens like immigrants in USA can apply, UK have never done something similar. Also France have always colonized by the State, with troops etc, not with opium smuggling or commercial criminals (Indian's companies). That's why I put UK at the top of the most criminal in the list. They are ranked third there because Dutch and Belgian crimes was far bigger even if for a limited period of time and geographical areas, but still at the top IMO.
I rank Spain crimes a bit lower because South America colonization is far in the past, in an era where certain crimes was not considered much crimes from the point of view of most populations, otherwise they would be at the top position, perhaps counting also they religious crimes against also their own citizens.
Anyway any power have a blood trail, that's just a rank for the most "recent" ones...
Ok. My bad here, I don't have Americas in my day-to-day mental picture, opposite to South-East Asia and Africa. Yes, with native Americans it looks much worse for British and Spain, you are right.
But, no, Vietnamese people can not get French citizenship on special conditions and never could. But they was killed & tortured on the grounds of owning too thick and too long stick, and French soldiers sent postcards with such photos to home! It was not 18 or 19 century, as in Americas, but 1910-1920!
On the other hand, British not only build roads and railroads in India (Myanmar railroads built by British colonial administration are still in use, including some gorgeous and highest mountain bridges), but cut weavers' hands in India, too.
The west gives enough humanitarian aid to feed the continent a few times over. It's hard for some to understand but adequate amounts of money or assistance isn't the problem here.
> The west gives enough humanitarian aid to feed the continent a few times over. It's hard for some to understand but adequate amounts of money or assistance isn't the problem here.
The west?
The continent?
"isn't the problem here"?
Citations needed. Definitions needed. Tell us what you perceive is the problem here?
So many downvotes without a response, looks like everyone seems to know some facts or has a consensus belief/faith that I don't know about or don't accept as a given fact/truth.
Agreed. I’ve seen the UN-led humanitarian system up close (albeit not in Africa). In my experience, it has many, many flaws. One of these is that it is resource constrained.
Or partner with local entities to push local production of goods and sponsor infrastructure building directly owned by the gov. and not external providers.
Giving away stuff without helping to build a production chain is usually just “we’re helping” signaling.
PS: except for very punctual, extraordinary events. Like helping rebuild schools after an earthquake.
Islamists are like talibans western creatures built to overthrown local dictatorships and governments in general when they do not behave in ways the west like, as the talibans they grow enough to a point they can revolt against those who have created them.
Keeping this in mind you'll understand why African's do not like us except when they live in EU, so when they see the difference and hypocrisy of our oppressive élite governance.
If this were true, especially #4, why aren't more companies doing business there? The instability seems to be reducing resource extraction. It seems China wants to increase stability and build infrastructure so that they can can exploit it. The only industry that would likely benefit from the inability to extract resources are the diamond companies since price is artificially inflated.
This reasoning is absurd in every way! Besides assuming China is an enemy of the US - what does that even mean?
Let me illustrate how ridiculous this reasoning is: "North Korea wants to prevent rampant global warming, North Korea is an enemy of the US, the US wants to...?"
Ever hear the enemy of my enemy is my friend? If the enemy is instability, the US and China may have a shared goal and cooperate (or at least not sabotage each other on that issue).
This is bad logic if you look at the bigger picture. So you’re saying that the US spends money for coups only to have China swoop in for the diplomatic win? Instability is also bad for US conglomerates to take advantage of the situation.
Not to mention everyone always assigns extreme competence to these conspiracy theories… yet the US couldn’t see that China would swoop in for a diplomatic win? C’mon.
Don't believe the marketing for our many stupid wars. It's never about democracy or women's rights or education or business or terrorism or even oil. (You know this, because none of our wars have ever improved any situation with respect to any of these supposed values.) The only point, ever, is to sell more weapons manufactured in USA. All of our stupid media and stupid politics are subordinate to this tawdry motivation.
For this purpose, it's actually better if Africans can momentarily imagine better lives, before their hopes are dashed again by more violent coups.
It is actually not about selling weapons. It is about getting access to natural resources such as oil and rare earth metals for things like chips. For that, you need stability in order to do business. Constant coups and armed insurrections is counter productive, which is why these types of conspiracy theories fall apart.
The first Iraq war could credibly be argued as improving USA commercial access to resources. A more tenuous argument could be made for our current ongoing occupation of Syria. However, which of these African interventions has improved the access of USA interests to natural resources? I can't identify any? Were you going to suggest Libya?
This thread is funny, because at the top the "fallacy of USA government competence" is invoked to argue in favor of our ghastly policies, and here you argue in favor of those same policies by assuming such competence. CIA, "special" forces, and less well known unsupervised services aren't in any sense a part of our government anyway. They are separate entities, and they pursue their own agendas.
> However, which of these African interventions has improved the access of USA interests to natural resources? I can't identify any?
It didn’t happen because China beat us to it with their One Belt Road. Despite bad strategy and poor foresight, it doesn’t weaken my argument that US intervention is mainly about getting access to natural resources.
In certain cases like Libya, it was to protect US strategic interests like maintaining USD as the global reserve currency. It was rumored that Libya was willing to deal with euros instead of dollars for oil.
Nothing you wrote backs up the nonsensical conspiracy theory that the US intervention is primarily for sowing chaos and disorder, or selling weapons. We can’t even compete price wise with modern manufacturers of weapons like the AK47 in Eastern Europe or Asia. Of the few countries in Africa that the US sell arms to, they tend to be more stable than other countries in the continent.
You keep typing the phrase "conspiracy theory", but that shibboleth is only potent for weak minds. Adults understand that temporarily coinciding interests are sufficient to coordinate action. We don't have to locate any particular smoke-filled backroom. We observe actions and results, and attribute repeated results to the actions that typically precede them.
We spend a trillion dollars a year on our military, without even considering military "aid" or the spending of allies. Unlike the AK47 you cite, American military weapons are mostly not fit for the purpose of "winning" wars: we haven't "won" a war since 1945. Since our armaments manufacturers don't have to worry about value or functionality, a great deal of money sloshes about in search of media producers, pundits, think tanks, retired officers, and politicians to influence. USA itself is completely safe from "conventional" military threats (of course all humanity lives in the shadow of nuclear annihilation), so talk of "security" is just more marketing. In the first half of the twentieth century, resource firms like United Fruit did control policy in the way you describe. Since then, because they must spend most of their money actually extracting resources, they've been outbid by the armaments manufacturers.
"Belt and Road" is investment plus a clumsy marketing campaign. American firms are certainly capable of that. Why haven't they chosen to invest in these areas? One possible reason would be the ongoing violence; perhaps they had a better idea of the schedule than the Chinese had. I've seen no evidence that China has reaped huge profits from this project, particularly in Africa.
Suppose you're right, though. Suppose that none of the carnage is for its own sake. Your preferred justification then is colonial resource extraction? What kind of justification is that? Why should the average American care about Chevron's profits? Why should we care what currency Libya accepts in exchange for its own oil? (Do you suggest that Russia's preference for rubles or even renminbi is a justification for the current mess?) Why should we kill and bleed and toil and pay, for that?
> Why haven't they chosen to invest in these areas? One possible reason would be the ongoing violence; perhaps they had a better idea of the schedule than the Chinese had.
I think from an investment standpoint it's probably not worth it. American/European/Western firms are occupying higher margin/revenue deals in safer countries. They have limited capacity so they have to choose investments. Likely ROI for investing in African countries is quite low. China on the other hand due to its self-imposed handicap is likely looking to invest in African countries to mine resources to bring back to China to make iPhones for everyone else. They just occupy a lower margin space. Otherwise, to your point, Americans could be doing what the Chinese are doing.
But also, there are so many things at play here I doubt any of us have much insight except speculation. Which is fun. But let's be clear about that.
> Unlike the AK47 you cite, American military weapons are mostly not fit for the purpose of "winning" wars: we haven't "won" a war since 1945.
People like to repeat this, but if you're talking about militarily (since you're talking about equipment) we've actually won quite a few wars. I'm sympathetic to your point that we haven't won any wars (Korea actually may be one we've "won", how do we classify Yugoslavia and Desert Storm?) but you have to be clear about it. If you want to criticize military equipment, I don't think you're correct and the numbers bear that out. If you want to say overall because we lose political will, then yea I think there are a number of wars that we've "lost".
There’s a lot of great non-sequiturs that veer far away from the original conspiracy theory that you can’t support.
> we haven't "won" a war since 1945
To my knowledge, the government that we installed in Iraq is still around and it’s still friendly
> Since then, because they must spend most of their money actually extracting resources, they've been outbid by the armaments manufacturers.
You still haven’t been able to prove this assertion. There are only five countries in Africa that buy our arms. Those countries are also some of the most stable nations in Africa.
> "Belt and Road" is investment plus a clumsy marketing campaign. American firms are certainly capable of that.
This veers from the original topic of the conspiracy theory that the US is sowing chaos in Africa to “keep them down”, but the Belt road initiative works because it’s just a slightly different copy of our IMF strategy… both end goals are to secure natural resources and cooperation by keeping those nations forever indebted. Chaos is counter productive because it can’t be controlled like a puppet
> Your preferred justification then is colonial resource extraction?
I am describing both history and current events. Let’s not confuse this for being a proponent of these initiatives.
> Why should the average American care about Chevron's profits?
Because it keeps gas prices down and anything related to gas cheap as well
> Why should we care what currency Libya accepts in exchange for its own oil?
Because it allows the US to keep spending with a deficit. Many American entitlements such as federal student loans, welfare, mortgage tax credits, and social security depend on the US being able to carry a deficit. One of the primary benefits of being the global reserve currency holder is that we can print money for longer before we have a hyperinflation situation like wehrmacht Germany
> Do you suggest that Russia's preference for rubles or even renminbi is a justification for the current mess
No. They prefer rubles because they are locked out of the global financial system. They also prefer it so they don’t have to pay conversion fees. This was also after the fact. Ukraine is Russia’s buffer zone, similar to NOrth Korea being China’s buffer zone. Before climate change melts the Artic, Russia’s main access to the seas is Crimea. They always want access to it.
I highly suggest that you do a lot more reading. It didn’t take much to debunk your unfounded and highly illogical conspiracy theory
Yea I agree. I wish Republicans would stop creating new ones ya know?
I’m also surprised at how small the defense industry is. What do you think we do to support tech companies? Do you think wars in Africa can be traced back to government support for Netflix and Stripe? Maybe we’re not supporting the defense industry, but actually supporting someone else behind the scenes yea?
> At this point it's safe to assume that this is always the unstated part of the plan. Keeping individual areas destabilized
If you read the article, it's all about how the instability is harming U.S. strategy in the region because the coups trigger laws that require the U.S. to break off partnerships:
> But U.S. commanders have watched with dismay over the past year as military leaders in several African allies—including officers with extensive American schooling—have overthrown civilian governments and seized power for themselves, triggering laws that forbid the U.S. government from providing them with weapons or training.
And lists several examples of that happening, such as:
> Last year, a logistics advisory team from Col. Sullivan’s brigade had just arrived in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital, and was waiting out its Covid-19 quarantine at a hotel when the Biden administration decided to cancel the deployment “due to our deep concerns about the conflict in northern Ethiopia and human-rights violations and abuses being committed against civilians,” according to a State Department spokesperson.
This disruption has opened the doors to other countries to take United State's place:
> Malian commandos attended U.S.-led special-operations exercises in Mauritania in 2020, but were cut off from American training after its military overthrew the president last May. The Malian junta hired Russian mercenaries from the Kremlin-linked Wagner Group to provide security.
Thing is that where USA elite is best is nontangable goods like financial systems, computer software and cultural stuff(movies, brands etc) and this stuff needs strong consumer markets. So if they would be that kind entity doing this stuff then it would not work for USA elite.
On the other hand these are fragile governments at best, and handing the military more effective troops is always going to cause a rise in the number of Coups.
This is not true, and it's relatively easy to prove.
It's nary impossible to 'extract resources' when nations are 'unstable'.
'Instability' means nothing can happen in the long term, and most of the necessary underlying necessary factors can't exist either.
'Instability' means contracts are ripped up, money disappears, rights are re-allocated, 3rd parties drop out etc. etc.. IMF contracts for the development of 'an electricity' grid - essential in doing anything - fall through.
And nobody is afraid of 'competition' from a completely underdeveloped nation. In some very niche cases (perhaps some unique resource), but that's negligible.
It's actually completely the opposite:
Everyone wants stability.
Stability means the system can start to develop, resource extraction starts to happen, but more importantly - 'the rest of the economy' starts to need and consume things. Factories buy German equipment, they buy gear from Caterpillar, they need IT from Cisco, they build dams using requiring myriad tooling, consulting from IBM and Accenture.
Consumers start to buy cars from Toyota and Ford, business need financial services from NY and London, they need loans and investment from abroad, they start to buy iPhones, Androids, they use Facebook, Twitter.
If you want to be cynical, then you can say what the West wants is 'stability' over democracy, which frankly is not entirely irrational.
Consider the situation in Saudi Arabia. House of Saud is held in power by the US, with the guarantee that the 'Oil Flows' and is sold at market prices to 'whoever'. Implicit in that is the nation remains stable. That they do not become a vassal of Russia or China etc., and that they act as a 'good neighbour country' and mostly they do. (Not always). Internally - it's not so nice. Lack of democracy and human rights, however, there's enough pressure for progress to be made, and there is.
Gadaffi was literally a terrorist, he shot down an airliner (Lockerbee). But via is 'nice guy son' was being 'rehabilitated' (i.e. image was cleaned up), because we don't mind and evil turd, as long as there is stability. Unfortunately, the 'Arab Spring' happened, his people rose up, and there was a civil war. Western involvement probably shifted the outcome, but the resulting instability was inevitable - and Oil contracts went to shit. Nobody wants that.
In reality - intervention in utterly chaotic and despotic states is just hard. You can train 'Your Man' and when he gets into power, he's not much better than the last guy.
Arguably, the West could steer more clear of it, but 'lack of involvement' is also a choice.
Botswana in the last couple decades has prospered amazingly - they are stable. They are a shining example for Africa. 'The West', China, India - absolutely want it to be like that, it's good for everyone.
Nobody in the west organized Euromaidan and it was not a coup. Viktor Yanukovych decided to abandon the country on his own without any military intervention.
The reason for Euromaidan is simple. Ukraine is poor and EU represents the road to prosperity. In 1991, after collapse of Soviet Union, Polish and Ukrainian economies were exactly the same size. The same GDP. Poland made very quick pivot to the west. We decided to join NATO in 1999 and EU in 2004. Last year Polish economy was 3 times bigger than Ukrainian.
Huh, it's pretty well known that the Coup Lady Victoria Nuland played a significant part here in assisting "regime change". The state dept was feeling confident after the successful Arab Spring and were on a roll getting rid of unfriendly governments. (They didn't always succeed at propping up US friendly ones though). Are you going to get absolute, in-controvertible proof ? No, that's certainly not how these things work.
Nuland served as the deputy national advisor to to Vice President Dick Cheney, serving as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser and exercising an influential role during the Iraq War.
Her husband - Robert Kagan is the leading advocate of " "liberal interventionism" and was one of the early and strong advocates of military action in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan as well as to "remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan
I would strongly suggest a reading of history with a deeply skeptical view of US state department. The saddest thing for me was comforting Libyan friends who were in shock after their nation dissolved to ashes - a nation which had universal health care.
Yes - USA was involved, as was Russia, France, Poland and Germany.
I agree that discussing who should and should not be in the government of an independent state is wrong.
But there was no coup and Yanukovych himself signed an agreement whose first point stipulated government change, Yanukovych decided to flee on his own and Yanukovych was impeached by democratically elected parliament.
USA did not start the protests. The protests started because people, especially around Kyiv, wanted and still want more than ever across the whole Ukraine to join EU. Yanukovych was elected with the promise of joining EU as a strategic goal.
At the same time, on 27 February 2014, masked Russian troops without insignia took over the Supreme Council (parliament) of Crimea and captured strategic sites across Crimea. Crimea was annexed on 18 March 2014 by Russia.
If you watch the videos the entire city was on fire and the "peaceful protestors" were firing rocket propelled grenades at the police force. And the Democratically elected leader, Yanukovych, had to flee the country and give control over to the insurrectionists or he would have been murdered.
I guess you can say "That wasn't a coup" if you like, but we would really just arguing about semantics here.
The protests were peaceful at the very begging in November 2013. Then protests were dispersed and the spiral of violence escalation started culminating in death of around 100 protesters and less than 20 police officers in February 2014.
Towards the end it was certainly not a peaceful ordeal. It was more of a small uprising.
I recall snipers shooting to protestors.
But I don't recall RPGs being used by either side when I was following it. I could not find any mention of it right now. Any sources of that claim?
On Feb 21st 2014, the EU foreign ministers and Yanukovich signed on a deal where there would be speedy elections — that would most certainly remove Yanukovich from power, somewhere in spring.
But on Feb 22nd, the protesters refuse that deal and seize Yanukovich's palace, stripping him of power immediately. After which he flees.
It's that seizing of the palace and rejecting the EU-brokered deal is what is usually called "the coup".
1. Within 48 hours after the signing of this agreement will be adopted, signed and promulgated a special law that will restore the action of the Constitution of 2004, as amended by this time. The signatories declare their intention to create a coalition and form a national unity government within 10 days thereafter.
On February 22, 2014 as allowed by Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution, Verkhovna Rada decided to impeach Yanukovich with 328 votes for, 0 against and 122 not present or abstaining.
According to the Constitution of Ukraine, impeachment would have involved a) formally charging the president with a crime; b) a review of the charge by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine; and c) a three-fourths majority vote – i.e. at least 338 votes in favor – by the Rada.
Of that three — that all had to happen — exactly zero happened. Instead, the Verkhovna Rada declared that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and cited "circumstances of extreme urgency" as the reason for early elections.
This can be taken to a direction of "democratic transfer of power under extraordinary circumstances". This also can be taken to a direction of "unconstitutional coup d'etat". The direction depends on the goals one's trying to achieve.
Because a popular revolution shouldn't be labelled a "US-backed coup", and labelling it as such strips agency from the protesters who made it happen. Getting the label right is important given that this is a critical part of the Kremlin's justification for the invasion: casting the current Ukrainian government as illegitimate, and stripping Ukrainians of agency and their identity.
The evidence that it was a US-backed coup is quite weak; from Nuland's leaked call, to Nuland handing out sandwiches to protesters, to the speculative opinions of Estonia's FM, to the few billions of investments the US has made into civic institutions since 1991 -- it's a little bit of smoke if you squint really hard and apply a good dose of confirmation bias, while simultaneously sweeping under the rug Russia's more aggressive colonial meddling in Ukraine (such as Yushchenko's poisoning).
Maybe better evidence will emerge later about 2014 as records are declassified (such as it did with Diem's overthrow), it's possible and wouldn't be surprising, but barring better evidence, it needs to be labelled the 2014 Maidan Revolution, or something similar.
Yes. Westerners and Russians seems to think that everything is organized by USA and that people of other nations do not have any autonomy.
A lot of people seem to think that Poland or Baltic states were somehow forced into NATO. Certainly narrative that China is trying to sell right now.
We knew very well that aligning ourselves with Russia is just straight road to disaster. And we needed to get as far as possible as soon as possible from Russian imperialism when we had a small window of opportunity.
Ukraine was split on it and it did result in disaster.
> everything is organized by USA and that people of other nations do not have any autonomy
This is not an either-or proposition: the truth could well be that there were (lots of) people who wanted a regime change AND the US State Department intervened.
It's not a spin. The word "intervened" may mean anything from talking to people to military intervention. USA officials talked about who would be good for them in Ukrainian government, granted some loans etc., while Russia put soldiers in Crimea parliament, annexed Ukraine territory and started war that continues till this day.
USA talked, while Russia started a war. Both can be understood as interventions, but they are not equivalent.
Technically true, but this reeks of false balance fallacy. The US recognizing that Yatsenyuk will inevitably take power (given that he was the most popular opposition politician by far) and strategizing about factional politics following a brewing revolution is just categorically different to annexing territory and poisoning opponent politicians.
There's also no equivalency between a serial killer who killed 10 people and a serial killer who killed 100 people.
> and you should not be trying to create it
I'm not trying to create any equivalency. But if these two serial killers are fighting each other to death, may I please be excused from rooting for one of them?
> Because a popular revolution shouldn't be labelled a "US-backed coup"
What do you suggest we label a situation where the US government officials get in touch with people opposing the regime in a foreign country, in protests (that turned violent) and talk to their leaders, designating one of them to lead the future government and vetoing some of them from joining that future government?
(Note that the leaked Pyatt-Nuland call is from before Feb 5th. They apparently talked to Yatsenyuk to lead the future gov't, and they are discussing that Klitchko and Tyahnibok stay out while supporting it. On Feb 27th the new gov't is sworn in, lead by Yatsenyuk, with Klitchko and Tyahnibok on the outside.)
On similar note, what would you call a situation where Russian gov't would get in touch with people opposing the ruling US order and organize a regime change in US? "Popular Revolution" or "Russia-instilled coup"?
The leaked call reveals little novel information. Nuland was already having public meetings with Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and others on the eve of the revolution. It's a foregone conclusion that such meetings were to exercise US influence to promote the US foreign policy position on what ought to happen if the government was to get toppled in a revolution.[1] This isn't evidence that the US instigated the revolution, or that the US was a big part of the factors behind the revolution. It's "US-backed" in the weakest sense of the US having communicated their desired outcome if the revolution came to pass after the ball was already set in motion by Ukrainians.
That's why we shouldn't label it a US-backed coup. That label connotes a large degree of involvement and influence over the causal factors underlying the revolution which can't be supported.
If the US followed Russia's tactics and poisoned pro-Russian Ukrainian leaders, or sowed disinformation in their media ecosystem, then sure, the label of a US-backed coup would be more than appropriate.
[1] Actually, this is me being overly generous. While that is one possible interpretation, another is that they simply recognized that Yatsenyuk will take power due to his overwhelming popularity among Ukrainian people, and are simply trying to preempt and manage the inevitable factional politics that could arise post-revolution.
What would we call a situation where Russian foreign minister and their ambassador to Washington would contact and meet the leaders of the March on the Capitol, and dictate them what the future US government — if that March succeeded — would look like?
The US went ballistic over the idea that Russians interfered in their elections by publishing emails. The direct contacts would turn them super-ballistic.
> a situation where Russian foreign minister and their ambassador to Washington would contact and meet the leaders of the March on the Capitol
If Russia played no role in instigating the conditions of the revolt, and if Russia was a close US ally, then I would not call that a Russia-backed coup attempt.
The analogy doesn't fit, though, because Russia wasn't an ally, it was an adversary with its heart set on undermining US democracy. And Russia did play a role in the events that caused the revolt, with the purported stealing and releasing of the DNC's and Podesta's private e-mails, strategically leaked immediately after the Access Hollywood tape. One could make a case that these leaks got Trump elected due to the thin margins that he carried he election by, and that the leaks created an atmosphere of deep-state conspiracy thinking in the US public that made people more pliable to Trump's stolen election lies.
>Nobody in the west organized Euromaidan and it was not a coup.
The specific details are usually hazy and rarely clear-cut, but there is well documented history of the US involving themselves in all sorts of "coups" and "revolutions". And that involvement doesn't imply that these actions aren't supported in one way or another by segments of the population in the country where they are performed. If there are benefits to the US, they're in there contributing.
Yanukovich decided to flee when an agreement with opposition, co-signed by three ministers of foreign affairs of EU, were just ditched by the crowd and the opposition.
After he rejected EU under pressure from Russia, by his own words. Against what quite a lot of Ukraniens wanted, voted for and worked for for a long time. You can't ignore preceeding pressure and meddling from Russia in this story.
And despite all the effort to engineer pro Russia sentiment in Ukraine, it never worked, because it is not actually that easy to create large scale support for anything from outside.
> Against what quite a lot of Ukraniens wanted, voted for and worked for for a long time.
But in accordance with what quite a lot of other Ukranians wanted, voted for and worked for for a long time.
Ukraine is a badly-divided country that has been long in a business of imposing the will of some of their people on all of their people. What will of some was imposed on all changed with time; the fact did not.
In similar situation, some of Swiss people wanted more association with Germany while some wanted more association with France or Italy; they wisely decided on neutrality and have been living with that peacefully for hundreds of years, staying out of many wars involving some or all of their neighbors.
> But in accordance with what quite a lot of other Ukranians wanted, voted for and worked for for a long time.
Nope, the rejection of Eu did not had that much support. Trying to frame these two groups as equivalent in standing is a lie. And also, Americans did not made 10000 people to protest either.
> they wisely decided on neutrality and have been living with that peacefully for hundreds of years, staying out of many wars involving some or all of their neighbors.
This is nonsense. Neutrality means exactly what is happening now - large scale invasion from Russia. Anti-Ukrainien sentiment was there for being actively build up in Russia for years. Russia don't want to Ukrainien neutrality. They want to eliminate Ukraine all together. And there is no way you dont know it at this point.
And the debate here is about EU not even nato.
Also, real neutrality would required that there is no meddling from Russia either, that Russia wont try to impose own will on Ukraine. Wont try to put own puppets into government. Wont try to turn Ukraine into autocracy like Belarus. It would also required Russia to abandon imperialistic ideology, abandon the "we will suppress Ukrainian language and identity again" plans too.
This war is not about west. This war is about Russia.
----------------
For that matter, Finland seems to be rethinking neutrality too now. Just one more data point about how "neutrality" is not looking "wise" now. It is either "naive", "attempt at dishonest framing" or "I want Russia to annex Ukraine, actually".
The Swiss can be more relaxed now, because their mixed national composition has been stable for many hundreds of years and if they had once some grudges against each other, the reasons are forgotten by now.
Not so in the territories that are now included in Ukraine. The proportion of the nationalities and their relative wealth has been drastically altered during the last century by Stalin, who moved out many "inferior races", confiscating all their valuable belongings and sending them to much worse places (when not just murdering them), while bringing in Russians to replace them.
The Russians colonists have been privileged in comparison with the natives since the beginning, when many have been installed directly in the houses and on the lands from which the former inhabitants had been evicted.
Not enough time has passed since then, so there are still living people who remember how it was before any Russian was around.
This "badly-divided country" has been created by Stalin less than a century ago. The division is the same as in all the other former parts of the Soviet Union, between the earlier inhabitants of those countries and the Russian colonists who have lost their privileges after the break-up of the Soviet Union.
Hopefully, after some more time, the people could become wiser and reach a model of cohabitation like the Swiss, but as long as not only the Russians have never apologized for their former acts, but they also continue with attempts of military invasions of their neighbors at any opportunity, like they have continuously done for many hundreds of years, the Swiss model remains an illusion for the former Soviet republics.
Stalin never bothered with races at all. Nazis did.
> This "badly-divided country" has been created by Stalin less than a century ago.
Now you're just repeating Putin's own words — "Ukraine was created by Soviet Russia".
> colonists have been privileged in comparison with the natives
The relations between Russians and Ukrainians are not of "colonists" and "natives" — it's fundamentally different from Brits/Hindus, or French/Algerians, or Italians/Ethiopians. They are two branches of the same group of people. The modern Russian state, and its church, both trace themselves to Kiev.
Your understanding of Ukraine's history is so factually incorrect, to the point that I don't see a reason to continue this conversation.
Unlike Hitler, Stalin did not use the word "race", but he acted identically against various population groups distinguished by their nationality, which is why I have used the word "race", to emphasize their identical behavior.
Just a couple of examples of the nationalities which were removed from the territories now in Ukraine, sent to remote areas, e.g. in Siberia or Uzbekistan, and replaced with Russians are the Tatars and the Romanians.
> Now you're just repeating Putin's own words — "Ukraine was created by Soviet Russia".
You have either misunderstood or you pretend to have misunderstood what I have said. You said that Ukraine is divided now, I said that this division mentioned by you was created by Stalin, not so long ago.
I have used the word "natives", because the natives are mostly Ukrainians but also many other minorities.
> They are two branches of the same group of people
The fact that one millennium ago their ancestors were a single people means nothing when today they do not treat each other as equals.
During the Soviet Union, those belonging to a minority, either Ukrainian or any other minority, could indeed have similar career advancement opportunities like the Russians, but only with the following conditions: master the official Russian language, never express any doubt about the bullshit history that was taught in the Soviet Union, according to which everything good in the world, in any art, science, technology and even sports, has been discovered or invented by some unknown great Russian, even if the Imperialists claim otherwise (at least this was the version of history that I have seen in the Russian manuals used prior to 1970, I do not know if the later manuals became less fantastic), never say anything that would show lack of agreement with the idea that even if the Soviet Union had a very large number of nationalities, all with equal rights, the Russians deserve to be much more equal and they must always be imitated in everything, as they know better, from political and economical organization to science and technology and even in minor aspects, e.g. the names of the soccer teams.
Basically, in the Soviet Union anyone belonging to a minority could indeed have the same success like a Russian, but by becoming a Russian.
Regarding my understanding of Ukraine's history I can assure you that I know much more correct facts than you presume, and not from secondary sources, but from direct sources, because my mother had many relatives who were deported to Siberia, robbed or murdered by Russians, in territories of the present Ukraine.
Also, I understand very well Russian so I form my opinion about the actions of Russia mainly by looking at what they themselves say, and not by what others say about Russia.
> master the official Russian language, never express any doubt about the bullshit history that was taught in the Soviet Union
Isn't it the same in the modern USA? Implicit agreement with official narrative can get you anywhere, whereas explicit disagreement with it will get you cancelled.
In fact, both in the Soviet Union and the USA it would be easier to advance if you declare yourself a minority, even if the basis for such claim is weak.
This has been the Empire building-101 for ages: if you respect the state authority (emperor/czar/rule-of-law), state ideas (christianity/communism/democracy) and speak the state language, you can make it to the top — regardless of your ethnicity.
Even the Roman Empire had an Emperor who was Arab (historians agree he was really ethnic arab) and another one who was African (historians disagree just how black he was, but definitely agree he was unusually black). Salah-ad-Din (Saladin) was Kurdish. Russian Empire had tons of Germans/French/Swedes at their service. Of the famous Nazis, Otto Scorzeny was Polish (Skozheny would be a better rendition of his name) and Odilo Globochnik, Slovakian. Etc. etc. etc.
The idea that Ukrainians were somehow a "minority" in either Russian Empire or USSR is laughable to no end. Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians were a majority, and there would be no way to tell between them, unless you would study their personnel files. It's as laughable as suggesting that Austrian nazis were somehow treated badly by German nazis.
> Unlike Hitler, Stalin did not use the word "race", but he acted identically against various population groups distinguished by their nationality, which is why I have used the word "race", to emphasize their identical behavior.
I don't have particular bones to pick with your history, but you're misusing quotation marks.
Please read up on what happened just before maidan, how yanukovich decided not to sign treaty with eu at the last minute, obviously against people will.
Democratically elected governments do things against the "people's will" all the time. That's not a reason for a coup.
As an example, the italian government is forcing us citizens to pay the cost of the sanctions to Russia, which will be really hard on us. Polls show that the large majority of Italians is against applying sanctions on Russia and sending weapons to Ukraine.
I cannot speak for other countries but in Ukraine people started protesting by their own will. To allege that it was due to foreign influence is to deny Ukrainians of their agency. Let's not believe this Russian propaganda that Ukraine is not a real country and its people cannot decide by themselves.
Regarding Crimea and Donbass, as far as I am aware there were no attempts to overthrow the government by local population before Russian military seized control of government buildings.
So the difference is clear:
- in Kyiv, everything started with protests that the government tried to suppress for several months
- in Crimea everything started with Russian military taking control over the peninsula which is a foreign intervention, exactly the type that commenters above try to attribute to USA. But there were no USA soldiers on Maidan, and there were Russian soldiers in Crimea and Donbass.
Even if it were grass root movement (could be possible, though somewhat doubtful) in donbas and crimea, they didn’t start with peaceful protest demanding early election or greater autonomy or something democratic. There goal clearly was to chip away the territory from ukrain.
The peaceful protests for closer ties to the EU didn't achieve anything. And the democratically elected president was ousted by force. It's not hard to imagine that those opposed to the new regime would see armed insurrection as the logical means of achieving their aims.
"Yanukovych's Berkut violently tried to put down peaceful protests" and "Violent protests ousted Yanukovych by force" are both true. For some reason you want to ignore the fact that the peaceful protests failed and then escalated to violent retaliation.
It's amazing how often the US/West gets away with the exact same scam.
Step one: install tough nationalist leader
Step two: sell the countries natural resources cheap to US/West
Step three: invest that money wisely to grow the nation.
Only joking, you don't need strongmen to sell natural resources cheaply to foreigners, you need them for the real step three when someone points out you're getting rich selling the country's resources and the average person gets nothing.
Real step 3: authoritarian crackdown financed with western cash inflows.
Step Four: slow, then quick, collapse of the above regime during which the big power play is to threaten to stop selling the resources cheaply and jailing, killing, torturing a bunch of actual patriots.
Step five: US/West to the rescue, saving you from those naughty strongmen who sold them the resources.
China got really lucky by not having many natural resources beside their people.
There was a lot of public discussion in nerdy economics circles about the best way to privatize the USSRs industries. Some of the factors they discussed might surprise you. Compared with say Poland there was a lot of emphasis on not having the industries under national control or ownership even though that's not strictly required for 'economic efficiency'.
What really is the difference between an authoritarian dictator controlling Iraq's oil (oh, and all the other bits of Iraq the west doesn't care about) and selling it to the west and getting support and funding from the West in return to build palaces full of gold. Versus Oligarchs, controlling even more strongly the bits of Russia the west cares about and allowing Russians to feel like they control the other bits. But only the oligarchs get the palaces full of gold, and probably in a proper country, in fact why not a superyacht, that's less obviously not in Russia, even though it's clearly not in Russia.
But wait, this doesn't feel right, you have strong, patriotic leadership (like Iraq) and (like Iraq) your strong leader kills people that look and sound just like you to Americans. And Americans make a lot of noise about that while still buying your oil. Take that America. And (like Iraq) suddenly you're the bad guy when you thought you had a working relationship and power because you had the resources. And (like Iraq) USA is going to own you even more once you finish fucking yourself up.
What today is undeniable is that 2014 Euromaidan was a step in the right direction for Ukrainians - no matter how it started. Seriously, why would anyone (except oligarchs) want to be under Putin's control?
Right so what would you do in Nigeria and Mali, two countries with weak militaries struggling to maintain control of their territory? Options
1. Ignore their requests for training, because who cares about them. If they’re overrun by jihadists, it’s fine.
2. Train their military, helping them maintain peace and security internally. Consequences - you’ll be on the hook for any actions that military takes in the future. Intellectuals on HN will criticise this action with the benefit of hindsight.
Please, choose one.
The thing with “clever” comments like yours is that the lack the basic level of thought.
When it comes to problems in the developing world, I think we neglect to highlight Islam's role. Islam is an Arab religion that has spread across Africa and Asia. It supplants local cultures and religions and Muslim-dominated countries tend to be caught in a stalemate between popular Islamist regimes and military dictatorship. Egypt is a prime example. Pakistan is looking more and more like a failed state.
I don't think the problem is the Quran but I've come to have a more negative view of the influence of Islam over the years. I think the problem is cultural imperialism: marginalization of local cultures and the Arabization that follows.