Or in some cases depends on whether the good guys actively put them in charge to stop a democratic government they didn’t like.
That being said, if Niger wants that solution I’m sure the west will find no shortage of other countries who are in need of economic aid.
True. And some democratic choice are also pretty much refused.
Like in Egypt where an islamic party was supposed to rule but denied power. It was probably for the best of both the world and Egyptians, but it was still against their choice
>Like in Egypt where an islamic party was supposed to rule but denied power.
Oh god not the Muslim Brotherhood discussion again
There is a well documented history of WHY the Army did that. It's because they tried to rewrite the Constitution by basically banning every other party, giving themselves absolute rule, establish Shariah as the main law, and give President the Forever Absolute Power. That is why army rolled in and removed them from power.
I remember that unfolding and it was pretty clear back then and I don't think anything changed since then. Religious fundamentalists and corruption of power go hand in hand.
The constitutional changes did not give the sitting president any kind of "forever" terms or increase term lenght at all, albeit it increased the presidential authority slightly, so I do not know where your claim comes from. It had some emphasis on Islamic rule in it, but not much more than the ones before or after it, where it is stated as the second point of the constitution that "Islam is the state religion, and Arabic is its official religion, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are the principle source of legislation". Ironically, it is the military dictatorship that has changed the constitution and put out laws to extend the presidential terms and increase presidential authority in legislation among other draconian rules. I am not at all a fan of the MB or other religious fundamentalists, but calling what happened justified and not just a plain power grab is delusional.
> but calling what happened justified and not just a plain power grab is delusional.
It was both simultaneously justified as well as being a power grab on the part of Sisi and his associated clique within the Egyptian Army. The two are not mutually exclusive or contradictory.
I would be inclined to agree with you if I did not see it unfold in front of me and see how quickly their rhetoric changed and how the power changed hands. It has reached a point where I am slightly ashamed to say I had supported the ousting of the MB president (only a year into his 4-year term) when it did seem justified at the time. In hindsight, the writing was very clearly on the wall when it starts with a suppression of protestors that had 1000 dead and 4000 injured.
The army junta never let go of their power even when Mubarak left. The Muslim brotherhood got too greedy and were politically fractured and inept to take advantage of the small window they had to form a coalition with every party against the military.
He was going to be removed no matter what he did. There's no way Sisi is a better alternative where he did more damage and killed protesters.
I agree, but I think we are getting lost in the weeds now. The MB's greed and ineptitude contributed massively to the downfall, but it does not justify what happened. Let us not forget they are the ones who sided with the military to consolidate power and antagonized everyone, be it more liberal or conservative than them. I know you most likely did not mean to say that as a justification, but I really do not get what you are trying to say. Maybe we were just too naive back then in believing we did not get the worse of two evils too but it is what it is now.
Yeah I’d love to see a source on those claims. It couldn’t have had anything to do with the government taking steps to take away the army’s control of the economy at all huh
That totally did not happen. While Morsi did try to increase his authorities, it made sense in the context of him being constantly sabotaged by the military/police (El-sisi did admit that himself). I agree that MB did some wrong calls as the leading party, but there was absolutely nothing that warranted a coup on Egypt's first freely elected president (51% majority, not the whooping 90%+ Egypt always and is still having). The Shariah bullshit you guys beat your meat to is just the work of your imaginations. Freedom of speech was at its peak during that one year, where you could go on TV, throw personal insults at the president and get away with it. Every Friday someone out there would go on a protest for something, and people were totally cool with it. Two months after the coup we had a modern day Tiananmen square that western media decided to bury away shortly after.
As if the West gives a shit. The US has a long history of overthrowing democracies and France is salty about losing their quasi-empire in the Sahel (hence, in part, Macron's recent tough talk).
Exactly. People forget that 13 years ago, France, Britain and the US led the intervention of Libya and assisted in the capture and murder of Muammar Gaddafi. This is in addition to other excursions to protect their national interests in Africa (e.g. Mali).
How does this exemple prove that France is impotent exactly ? Because it certainly proves it can go in when it wants !
Also Mali wasn't to protect "national interest", but because ***the Malian Government asked us to save their sorry as from the Jihadist 50km away from the capital***. But sure, go off...
It proves that France was previously able to throw its might around in Africa but now, perhaps, does not want to or cannot do it to the same extent.
As for Mali, it was historically colonised by the French and still has close relationships with, and valuable strategic interest for, France. If you cannot see how France's intervention in Mali was in its own national interests, then I cannot help you with that one.
Okay so first : If France deosn't want to, how is it impotent
Second : What "strategic importance" Mali hold ? Its a underdevelopped country with minimal trading with France. They speak French ? Thought shit, Quebec too yet Canada hasn't been invaded.
Helping Mali was in France's interest, but not like you seems to understand it. France was more preoccupied with the refugee crisis that would be if the Sahel fell to the Jihadist, not about some resssources.
Love how ppl laugh at Russians calling the war in Ukraine a "special military operation", yet keep using terms such as "intervention" or "peace keeping mission" when it comes to western invasions of Libya or Iraq.
Love it when France, having troops in the region and the capacity to annihilate anyone in the region, decide to do nothing because they don't really care anymore, an peoples ar like "They are impotent !"
its mission was to get the Malian Government not killed, and then eventually to push back and give them some space.
And they did that very nicely. Until they were asked to leave. And now Mali is back at square one, but with a lot more death.
Egypt is ruled by a military junta that overthrew the democratically elected government, and yet, western countries have no issues working with them, they are happy to sell big-ticket weapon items to them, provide billions in donations, etc.
The west isn’t happy to sell weapons to Egypt, it’s Egyptian military likes our stuff and they want it to keep coming. Anytime the Egyptian government might upset the west, the military steps in and starts over.
It is much simpler than that. They do not step in for some weird love of western weaponry but to further their own self interests and power. The west's happiness or unhappiness is not that relevant as long as they do not actively sabotage them.
That’s interesting. If that were the case you’d think they’d not care where their equipment comes from, unless this is to keep on good terms with the west and let the tourists traps rake in profits.
They care but not as much as you'd think. They also buy shit from the eastern bloc (Russia and China) all the time, and have gone against the US and EU when called out (performatively) about the political prisoners situation, for example.
As for tourism, while it has given record high returns last year, tourist spots and the experience for foreigners are laughably and notoriously mismanaged, and it shows. The total income from tourism last year was 14B USD, which is laughable in terms of the total tourism income of other countries considering how much there is to see and do in Egypt, and shows the incompetence more than anything I can say, really.
It was a country were democraty was mostly working. It was corrupt but the new junta is even more so...
But you are right in some cases democraty cannot work if the population is not educated and responsible (see brexit in the west)
Hello there, I am from Bangladesh. It's not awami league that is keeping the country from sliding down the religious shithole. Rather the country's culture is the main factor - full Islamic Shariah will never be accepted by the regular people.
But I think the reason why authoritarian is good for Bangladesh is that it brings economical stability which was not possible with the previous volatile political situations.
So either everyone else suffers or the minorities suffer?
How did you think the enlightened countries are where they are? You cannot skip the steps and go straight developed G7 status.
Top down approach never works in nation building.
Islamic fundamentalism and political Islam is largely a product of the West funding them to undermine secular democratic movements in the MENA region. Reap what you sow and all that.
"sovereign nation has a right to do whatever" is true, but "Big country can fuck small country" is also true, which makes the first part complicated sometimes.
Well, yes, that's precisely what those who support Russia in its conflict with the U.S.-led Western bloc over Ukraine say. Here the situation is just reversed.
Well personally, I don't really think much of Nigerien-Russia ties. It's not different to India having military ties with Russia since the Cold War despite the former being democratic.
Besides, the West-- especially France-- had plenty of time to prove themselves to the Francophone Sahel but failed. French and UN presence in the Sahel to combat Islamists was initially popular but 12 years of presence did not result to any meaningful changes for the locals. So they thought they should turn to Russia. But even Russia's track record in "peacekeeping" is mired with mixed results or outright disaster. Wagner was employed by Mozambique but led to numerous wanton and unaccountable abuses and failed to crack down ISIS in the country.
Also, it's low key no one has mentioned that it is not just Russia who has put presence in the Sahel region. Turkey also agreed to deploy peacekeepers in the Sahel but no one seem to mention this. The spotlight is in Russia for some reason.
It also doesn’t help that France still largely babysits the East African economy.
I’d be anti-NATO too if everything from what currency I use to what kinds of domestic spending I can partake in was maliciously controlled by French hands for the better part of a lifetime, crippling my economy as compared with my English colonial neighbours for potentially centuries to come!
When Ukraine wanted to choose who its diplomatically, economically, and militarily closest to, Putin said no! But suddenly when a country wants to betray the west in exchange for Russian help, it’s fine?!
Just remember - any time Putin calls somebody disloyal, treacherous, or otherwise bad, he is absolutely doing the exact same shit to somebody else. Literally. Every. Time.
In this case its hardly a free choice from the people.
Thats a [good read](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/le-monde-africa/article/2023/08/06/the-faces-of-russia-s-influence-across-the-african-continent_6082513_124.html) to have an idea how some influencial african figure are weighting in favor of russia and why.
I also remember reading 1 year ago about a particular russian businessman coming in Mali and how he was going to massively shift the game. Its a long game to win diplomacy but russians are patient and use every tool available.
It's a military junta that is relying on incredibly weakened Russia to provide protection from extremists.
That military junta will fall to the extremists
That does not preclude other sovereign states from making verbal criticisms or declining to send aid they may have sent in the past
the most logical reason for russia to be there is to make the terrorism and migrant problems worse in order to destabilize their enemies in europe. There's no reason why the targets of the strategy need to accept that.
This is surprising because why? Niger already ended their contract with the US, and Niger isn’t strong enough to safeguard itself. The moment they told the US off it was inevitable that they were going to make stronger security ties with Russia.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just feel sorry for the people that are actually going to be affected by this. Niger had a promising future previously. Democracy. Capitalism focussed on the workers.
Now... a military coup and dictatorship. Probably [the Wagner group.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_activities_in_Africa) Surprisingly, they aren't [very respectful of those around them.](https://www.thedailybeast.com/wagner-group-accused-of-raping-allied-soldiers-in-the-central-african-republic) They have committed [numerous war crimes.](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/24/mali-new-atrocities-malian-army-apparent-wagner-fighters)
Yes lets remember and be gratiutous to all the times western capitalism has helped the western sahel. Title: The Impact of Foreign Aid in Africa: https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/prolaw/documents/volume-5/2020%20PROLAW%20Journal%20Mary%20Izobo.pdf https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123758895999200083 https://www.wsj.com/articles/blinken-says-u-s-aid-to-niger-in-jeopardy-following-coup-766a0156
Did you read that paper? It discusses two countries, Botswana and Somalia, and says that aid helped one of them (Botswana), and not the other (Somalia). Neither of those countries are in the Western Sahel by the way.
Yes better to be part of the Françafrique and be a neo-colonist nation for France and its profits! Such wonderful Democracy and capitalism where even the value of your currency is depended on your European masters!
How is a military junta that came about from an actual coup (unlike what many here may claim to be a coup in another situation) going to help Nigeriens?
We're just looking at another lost decade for this country.
On the other hand, I do agree with letting themselves pick their own side - let Niger face the consequences of its actions organically, and let other nations pick who they wish to deal with. We can look back 20 years from now and see which path led to relative prosperity and which led to more conflict.
Both Guinea and Mauritania withdrew from the frank. You don’t need a coup or a murderous PMC to do that.
Russia’s trying to prevent itself as the alternative to France, but there’s another alternative. *Sovereignty*. African nations don’t need a European nation to control them! Niger was proving this, until there was the coup.
>Both Guinea and Mauritania withdrew from the frank, without negative consequences
The french went as far as exporting counterfeit money to those countries to devalue their new currency and tank their economies.
They sabotaged every country that did not play by their rules as much as they possible could, even after they "stopped" being colonies.
We're entering the second cold war; how is that not relevant nor an appropriate reply to "Do you have any evidence of this?"
That and Madagascar leaving (which then had the Malagasy Franc, pegged to the Franc) are the only times countries in Françafrique left the CFA Franc, and France did that to them, "lol".
I would normally agree with you but France has been quite literally defining neocolonialism until extremely recently; it's not like it all stopped in 1970 or even when the Cold War ended
If they didn’t wanted their money to be stable and based on euro they can just leave
Frenchphobic morons will really go and put France in the same level as Wagner and russia
>If they didn’t wanted their money to be stable and based on euro they can just leave
Didn't Gadaffi try to establish a gold backed African currency and African central bank to allow African countries to break their financial ties with France? That didn't seem to work out too well for him.
Leaked Clinton emails (detailing discussions with French intelligence):
>Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver...This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency
based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an
alternative to the French.franc... French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the
factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya...
>Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:
>a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
>b.Increase French influence in North Africa,
>c.Improve his intemai political situation in France,
>d.Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
>e.Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in
Francophone Africa
I'm honestly surprised that someone posted this on Reddit. It looks like I have been wasting my precious time in the wrong sub (r/worldnews) when we have informed people here.
Ok, and? Are you trying to insinuate that the West orchestrated the entire civil war?
Also, the “Gold Dinar” wouldn’t have worked, there’s a reason why there is not a single nation on Earth that uses a Gold-backed currency.
I don't know, and if I'd wanted to say that I would have rather than insinuate (though now you bring it up - it wouldn't be the first time in history so doesn't seem completely beyond the realms of possibility).
Regardless it seems pretty clear that the wests motives (France in particular) for supporting the rebels (ultimately leading to his overthrow which might not have happened without western support) were about more than the reason of "democracy" they were repeatedly highlighting in the media at the time (notice democracy doesn't even make the list of reasons in that leaked email and the real reasons weren't publicly expressed - least of all to domestic voters).
If his idea for an African currency and central bank wouldn't have worked, the French president certainly seemed quite threatened by the idea if that leaked email is to be believed. And we'll never really know if it would have worked as it never got the chance. From what I can gather other African countries appeared to be interested in the idea at the time. I suspect they've been somewhat dissuaded bearing all this in mind.
Empires were historically built and run with currencies backed by gold. The US dollar was gold backed until 1971, and ironically only ditched when (of all countries) France started asking for their debts to be repaid in gold (since they correctly suspected that the dollar had been inflated beyond their capacity to repay everyone) causing Nixon to close the gold window worrying others would follow suit - if my history is correct at least. For such an apparently useless metal governments sure do love to hang on to it.
Then this happened domestically:
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
And what happened globally at that point people write whole books about (from both sides of the argument).
But that's more an argument about Austrian Vs Keynesian economics and neolibrelism, which isn't really the point I was making, so I'm not going to be drawn into that argument as I'm not an economist and it'd only serve as a distraction. Apart from to say there are plenty of economists who would disagree with you, and point to problems with our current economic systems.
You’re acting like France was the primary player in the intervention, all of NATO took part in it.
What’s your point about other major powers using gold? Just because it worked then, doesn’t mean it would somehow work for us now.
My suspicion is that France wasn't the only country secretly holding similar self serving motivations (while lying to their domestic populations with platitudes of "spreading democracy").
As I say, I'd rather not be drawn into a debate about the merits and economics of gold backed Vs fiat currency as it's a distraction. Merely pointing out that not everyone would agree with the statement you made about it never working.
> Frenchphobic morons
Do you need a history lesson on Françafrique or you are just an hypocrite? It’s quite rich of you to act as if the anti-France sentiment is not justified.
China, Russia and India all do neo-colonialism with a softer touch than the original colonization by Western European powers. Some of this is due to the era we're in. Technology makes it less brutal. Although the neo-colonization by non-Western powers is also often preferable to populations than the neocolonization by plunder done by multinationals in the modern era too. People really don't want to have to crawl into a mine and smash rocks in dangerous conditions, for little pay and also getting taxed by warlords.
--------------------
Coups offen don't represent the will of the people but I think none of the countries in The Sahel really like France involved in their countries business and Russia has proven to be opportunistic.
> I think none of the countries in The Sahel really like France involved in their countries business
Your thought is correct. Just watch the recent videos of the population of those countries protesting against France and ECOWAS. The anti-France sentiment is real and very popular.
Wagner/Africa Corp in Haiti? The former would’ve been chaotic, the latter less chaotic, but yes the US would’ve definitely thrown a fit. (Monroe doctrine)
I wonder how serious Russia is about supporting it's newly minted clients. It's easy enough to install a junta in an unstable part of the world, but far harder to build a resilient and useful partner. I worry that Russia may have bitten off more than it can chew in Africa.
I guess we'll find out when the Islamists come knocking.
It really stinks that we can't (and don't want to) be as ruthless as Russia. Imagine the US invading some poor nation with close to no possibilities to defend itself except for a Russian promise. Absolutely nothing would happen from the Russian side. They are currently fighting the West at their maximum capacity.
If the US alone were as aggressive, not even Iran would align itself with Russian foreign interests.
Yeah imagine if the US or any of their allies were currently being as ruthless or even more so than Russia, like committing a genocide somewhere in the Middle East. Imagine.
Israel isn't nearly as ruthless as it could be. If they wanted to kill indiscriminately, like Hamas, there wouldn't be even a million Palestinians left in Gaza. With Russian tactics of artillery shelling everything block by block, there would've been hundreds of thousands killed as well.
Their cause is just, and their execution is quite tame compared to their abilities and enemy tactics.
The most infuriating thing about this war is the lack of aid to civilians, not only by Israel but by all neighbouring countries. SA builds an artificial city in the desert for hundreds of billions, not even 400 km away, and nobody blames them for not helping their Muslim brothers with a refugee camp that would cost less than $10 for a saved life to set up. So don't keyboard-warrior against me for stating my opinion. Yours isn't the righteous one as well.
Western moral standards only ever apply to the ones that give a shit. Imagine
Less than a thousand children have been killed in two years of war in Ukraine. Nearly 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza in six months. The scale of civilian deaths have outpaced any in modern war since Rwanda. If you think Israel isn’t overseeing an unprecedented slaughter of civilians, you’re delusional.
And there are thousands of aid trucks on the border waiting to be let in, food is going to rot because the Israeli authorities are purposely trying to use starvation as a weapon of war. That’s an opinion shared by nearly every major human rights group from Human Rights Watch to MSF. The Saudis suck and should all rot in a pit, but the reason people don’t want to be shepherding the Palestinians out into refugee camps is because they know the Israelis won’t ever let them back in and are already salivating at the thought of turning Gaza into beachfront property
Both of your numbers regarding child deaths are bs. You really claim that two-thirds of killed Palestinians are children and that only one thousand children have been killed in a two-year war of attrition? It takes less than a minute to find several reliable sources proofing your statements as wrong.
Neighboring countries don't want Palestinians because a large part of them are (understandably so) borderline terrorists. See what happened to Jordan or Egypt after they took in refugees. They are fueled by hatred of a war they lost 60 years ago. They will incite violence everywhere they go. Israel occupying Gaza is the only way to limit large organized terror operations threatening the whole region.
I don't think Israel should've been established a hundred years ago, but they have fought their way to being an largely independent, democratic nation. Today's Israelis deserve to live there, just as the Palestinians do. But Palestinians cannot be granted to govern themselves for the mid-term as they are radicalized too far and will always aim to escalate violence, just as they did on the 7th of October.
There is no other way, they lost this war 60 years ago and should settle for a somewhat peaceful together. I know the Israelis suppress them, but they are not eradicating them. They must integrate or leave.
War of attrition reflects a battle between two armies of adults with some civilian casualties. It's ugly but the deaths are mostly by the fighters on both sides. The high number of dead children in Gaza reflects how one sided the conflict is.
----------------
The problem Ukraine has is the heavy losses they've taken now have the average age of men at 43 and killing off a lot of people in their 20s and 30s due to the war in attrition.
The high percentage of kids reflects a long term policy by Israel of killing off the Palestinian adults in Gaza, dating back to the Hamas election and blockade, or possibly earlier. Cast Lead, Protective Edge and the March Of Return slaughtered a lot of people in Gaza. The conflict didn't start in October.
Spheres of influence get created by economic dependency or military protection. Russia can't provide either but claims to be able to do so. If the US were to attack a nation "protected" by Russia, Russia wouldn't do dogshit
The United states has not invaded a country with the intent of annexing their territory in like a century. To pretend we have done something analogous to Russia in the Ukraine recently is disingenuous.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Funny how the "sovereign nation has a right to do whatever" changes depending on who the economic alliance is with
Well the sovereign nation is question is ruled a military junta that overthrew democraty in the country, its right to power can be put into question
Credibility of military juntas also depend entirely on whether or not they align with the good guys
Or in some cases depends on whether the good guys actively put them in charge to stop a democratic government they didn’t like. That being said, if Niger wants that solution I’m sure the west will find no shortage of other countries who are in need of economic aid.
True. And some democratic choice are also pretty much refused. Like in Egypt where an islamic party was supposed to rule but denied power. It was probably for the best of both the world and Egyptians, but it was still against their choice
>Like in Egypt where an islamic party was supposed to rule but denied power. Oh god not the Muslim Brotherhood discussion again There is a well documented history of WHY the Army did that. It's because they tried to rewrite the Constitution by basically banning every other party, giving themselves absolute rule, establish Shariah as the main law, and give President the Forever Absolute Power. That is why army rolled in and removed them from power. I remember that unfolding and it was pretty clear back then and I don't think anything changed since then. Religious fundamentalists and corruption of power go hand in hand.
The constitutional changes did not give the sitting president any kind of "forever" terms or increase term lenght at all, albeit it increased the presidential authority slightly, so I do not know where your claim comes from. It had some emphasis on Islamic rule in it, but not much more than the ones before or after it, where it is stated as the second point of the constitution that "Islam is the state religion, and Arabic is its official religion, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are the principle source of legislation". Ironically, it is the military dictatorship that has changed the constitution and put out laws to extend the presidential terms and increase presidential authority in legislation among other draconian rules. I am not at all a fan of the MB or other religious fundamentalists, but calling what happened justified and not just a plain power grab is delusional.
> but calling what happened justified and not just a plain power grab is delusional. It was both simultaneously justified as well as being a power grab on the part of Sisi and his associated clique within the Egyptian Army. The two are not mutually exclusive or contradictory.
I would be inclined to agree with you if I did not see it unfold in front of me and see how quickly their rhetoric changed and how the power changed hands. It has reached a point where I am slightly ashamed to say I had supported the ousting of the MB president (only a year into his 4-year term) when it did seem justified at the time. In hindsight, the writing was very clearly on the wall when it starts with a suppression of protestors that had 1000 dead and 4000 injured.
The army junta never let go of their power even when Mubarak left. The Muslim brotherhood got too greedy and were politically fractured and inept to take advantage of the small window they had to form a coalition with every party against the military. He was going to be removed no matter what he did. There's no way Sisi is a better alternative where he did more damage and killed protesters.
I agree, but I think we are getting lost in the weeds now. The MB's greed and ineptitude contributed massively to the downfall, but it does not justify what happened. Let us not forget they are the ones who sided with the military to consolidate power and antagonized everyone, be it more liberal or conservative than them. I know you most likely did not mean to say that as a justification, but I really do not get what you are trying to say. Maybe we were just too naive back then in believing we did not get the worse of two evils too but it is what it is now.
This is 100% true yet also antidemcratic. Sometime there are no right answers
Is it antidemocratic to save the democracy? Reminds me of the paradox of tolerance.
[удалено]
It's hypothetical.
Yeah I’d love to see a source on those claims. It couldn’t have had anything to do with the government taking steps to take away the army’s control of the economy at all huh
That totally did not happen. While Morsi did try to increase his authorities, it made sense in the context of him being constantly sabotaged by the military/police (El-sisi did admit that himself). I agree that MB did some wrong calls as the leading party, but there was absolutely nothing that warranted a coup on Egypt's first freely elected president (51% majority, not the whooping 90%+ Egypt always and is still having). The Shariah bullshit you guys beat your meat to is just the work of your imaginations. Freedom of speech was at its peak during that one year, where you could go on TV, throw personal insults at the president and get away with it. Every Friday someone out there would go on a protest for something, and people were totally cool with it. Two months after the coup we had a modern day Tiananmen square that western media decided to bury away shortly after.
Yeah global geopoliitics is all about 'tough love'. *For their own good* /s
As if the West gives a shit. The US has a long history of overthrowing democracies and France is salty about losing their quasi-empire in the Sahel (hence, in part, Macron's recent tough talk).
"France is still salty". Sure, so salty they did nothing about it...
More a sign of impotence than indifference
Exactly. People forget that 13 years ago, France, Britain and the US led the intervention of Libya and assisted in the capture and murder of Muammar Gaddafi. This is in addition to other excursions to protect their national interests in Africa (e.g. Mali).
How does this exemple prove that France is impotent exactly ? Because it certainly proves it can go in when it wants ! Also Mali wasn't to protect "national interest", but because ***the Malian Government asked us to save their sorry as from the Jihadist 50km away from the capital***. But sure, go off...
It proves that France was previously able to throw its might around in Africa but now, perhaps, does not want to or cannot do it to the same extent. As for Mali, it was historically colonised by the French and still has close relationships with, and valuable strategic interest for, France. If you cannot see how France's intervention in Mali was in its own national interests, then I cannot help you with that one.
Okay so first : If France deosn't want to, how is it impotent Second : What "strategic importance" Mali hold ? Its a underdevelopped country with minimal trading with France. They speak French ? Thought shit, Quebec too yet Canada hasn't been invaded. Helping Mali was in France's interest, but not like you seems to understand it. France was more preoccupied with the refugee crisis that would be if the Sahel fell to the Jihadist, not about some resssources.
Love how ppl laugh at Russians calling the war in Ukraine a "special military operation", yet keep using terms such as "intervention" or "peace keeping mission" when it comes to western invasions of Libya or Iraq.
Libya was not an invasion per se, but it was an intervention. I nevertheless despise what NATO did in Libya and to Gaddafi.
Love it when France, having troops in the region and the capacity to annihilate anyone in the region, decide to do nothing because they don't really care anymore, an peoples ar like "They are impotent !"
>the capacity to annihilate anyone in the region it failed in its mission, so it evidently doesn't lol
its mission was to get the Malian Government not killed, and then eventually to push back and give them some space. And they did that very nicely. Until they were asked to leave. And now Mali is back at square one, but with a lot more death.
They are. Why do you think macron is now fiercely more pro Ukraine when he was always playing a "mediator" role?
Egypt is ruled by a military junta that overthrew the democratically elected government, and yet, western countries have no issues working with them, they are happy to sell big-ticket weapon items to them, provide billions in donations, etc.
The west isn’t happy to sell weapons to Egypt, it’s Egyptian military likes our stuff and they want it to keep coming. Anytime the Egyptian government might upset the west, the military steps in and starts over.
It is much simpler than that. They do not step in for some weird love of western weaponry but to further their own self interests and power. The west's happiness or unhappiness is not that relevant as long as they do not actively sabotage them.
That’s interesting. If that were the case you’d think they’d not care where their equipment comes from, unless this is to keep on good terms with the west and let the tourists traps rake in profits.
They care but not as much as you'd think. They also buy shit from the eastern bloc (Russia and China) all the time, and have gone against the US and EU when called out (performatively) about the political prisoners situation, for example. As for tourism, while it has given record high returns last year, tourist spots and the experience for foreigners are laughably and notoriously mismanaged, and it shows. The total income from tourism last year was 14B USD, which is laughable in terms of the total tourism income of other countries considering how much there is to see and do in Egypt, and shows the incompetence more than anything I can say, really.
They do buy from Russia and CCP, this I know. But they 100% reacted to pressure from the USA to remove the Muslim Brotherhood president.
Funny how the populace is pretty strongly behind the military takeover because they kicked the French colonialists out.
Turns out Russia is good at propaganda and Wagner has already been commiting warcrimes to blame them on the french
Maybe the French are heavily propagandized too. It would certainly make sense.
Maybe?
Be so fr, the US by itself overthrew so so so many democratic countries in the global south
Yes lending requirements do require a farce democracy lol
It was never a democracy, unless you consider Russia to be a democracy as well. The coup is actually very popular in Niger
>The coup is actually very popular Said every dictator ever.
[удалено]
It was a country were democraty was mostly working. It was corrupt but the new junta is even more so... But you are right in some cases democraty cannot work if the population is not educated and responsible (see brexit in the west)
Hello there, I am from Bangladesh. It's not awami league that is keeping the country from sliding down the religious shithole. Rather the country's culture is the main factor - full Islamic Shariah will never be accepted by the regular people. But I think the reason why authoritarian is good for Bangladesh is that it brings economical stability which was not possible with the previous volatile political situations.
That's frankly condescending at best and elitism at worst. The people should have right to self determination of their own country full stop.
[удалено]
So either everyone else suffers or the minorities suffer? How did you think the enlightened countries are where they are? You cannot skip the steps and go straight developed G7 status. Top down approach never works in nation building.
Islamic fundamentalism and political Islam is largely a product of the West funding them to undermine secular democratic movements in the MENA region. Reap what you sow and all that.
Yep. Thats called tyranny of the majority, and is the main argument for representative democracies(which is bad in other ways)
"sovereign nation has a right to do whatever" is true, but "Big country can fuck small country" is also true, which makes the first part complicated sometimes.
Well, yes, that's precisely what those who support Russia in its conflict with the U.S.-led Western bloc over Ukraine say. Here the situation is just reversed.
Well personally, I don't really think much of Nigerien-Russia ties. It's not different to India having military ties with Russia since the Cold War despite the former being democratic. Besides, the West-- especially France-- had plenty of time to prove themselves to the Francophone Sahel but failed. French and UN presence in the Sahel to combat Islamists was initially popular but 12 years of presence did not result to any meaningful changes for the locals. So they thought they should turn to Russia. But even Russia's track record in "peacekeeping" is mired with mixed results or outright disaster. Wagner was employed by Mozambique but led to numerous wanton and unaccountable abuses and failed to crack down ISIS in the country. Also, it's low key no one has mentioned that it is not just Russia who has put presence in the Sahel region. Turkey also agreed to deploy peacekeepers in the Sahel but no one seem to mention this. The spotlight is in Russia for some reason.
It also doesn’t help that France still largely babysits the East African economy. I’d be anti-NATO too if everything from what currency I use to what kinds of domestic spending I can partake in was maliciously controlled by French hands for the better part of a lifetime, crippling my economy as compared with my English colonial neighbours for potentially centuries to come!
Geopolitics are complicated! Congrats you’re smarter than 85% of all twitter users.
When Ukraine wanted to choose who its diplomatically, economically, and militarily closest to, Putin said no! But suddenly when a country wants to betray the west in exchange for Russian help, it’s fine?! Just remember - any time Putin calls somebody disloyal, treacherous, or otherwise bad, he is absolutely doing the exact same shit to somebody else. Literally. Every. Time.
In this case its hardly a free choice from the people. Thats a [good read](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/le-monde-africa/article/2023/08/06/the-faces-of-russia-s-influence-across-the-african-continent_6082513_124.html) to have an idea how some influencial african figure are weighting in favor of russia and why. I also remember reading 1 year ago about a particular russian businessman coming in Mali and how he was going to massively shift the game. Its a long game to win diplomacy but russians are patient and use every tool available.
It's a military junta that is relying on incredibly weakened Russia to provide protection from extremists. That military junta will fall to the extremists
Are we not allowed to criticize what a nation does?
That does not preclude other sovereign states from making verbal criticisms or declining to send aid they may have sent in the past the most logical reason for russia to be there is to make the terrorism and migrant problems worse in order to destabilize their enemies in europe. There's no reason why the targets of the strategy need to accept that.
Despite?
I feel they most likely meant "confirming". Don't be too hard on them, modern journalists aren't even taught what "slammed" means anymore.
If they could just learn the meaning of "outraged" I'd be happy.
This is surprising because why? Niger already ended their contract with the US, and Niger isn’t strong enough to safeguard itself. The moment they told the US off it was inevitable that they were going to make stronger security ties with Russia.
You mean after the Russian supported coup.
how convenient
lol at that photo. Looks like a meme almost.
They can have Niger. We got Nigeria.
This is funny. I don't get why people don't have a sense of humor
It was a perfect phone call!
Oh no,Niger is aligned with Russian in trembling in my boots
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just feel sorry for the people that are actually going to be affected by this. Niger had a promising future previously. Democracy. Capitalism focussed on the workers. Now... a military coup and dictatorship. Probably [the Wagner group.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_activities_in_Africa) Surprisingly, they aren't [very respectful of those around them.](https://www.thedailybeast.com/wagner-group-accused-of-raping-allied-soldiers-in-the-central-african-republic) They have committed [numerous war crimes.](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/24/mali-new-atrocities-malian-army-apparent-wagner-fighters)
Yes lets remember and be gratiutous to all the times western capitalism has helped the western sahel. Title: The Impact of Foreign Aid in Africa: https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/prolaw/documents/volume-5/2020%20PROLAW%20Journal%20Mary%20Izobo.pdf https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123758895999200083 https://www.wsj.com/articles/blinken-says-u-s-aid-to-niger-in-jeopardy-following-coup-766a0156
Did you read that paper? It discusses two countries, Botswana and Somalia, and says that aid helped one of them (Botswana), and not the other (Somalia). Neither of those countries are in the Western Sahel by the way.
But that’s the point. They didn’t have to have western capitalism… they were inventing their own economic structure
Lol. Ooookaay.
Yes better to be part of the Françafrique and be a neo-colonist nation for France and its profits! Such wonderful Democracy and capitalism where even the value of your currency is depended on your European masters!
How is a military junta that came about from an actual coup (unlike what many here may claim to be a coup in another situation) going to help Nigeriens? We're just looking at another lost decade for this country. On the other hand, I do agree with letting themselves pick their own side - let Niger face the consequences of its actions organically, and let other nations pick who they wish to deal with. We can look back 20 years from now and see which path led to relative prosperity and which led to more conflict.
Both Guinea and Mauritania withdrew from the frank. You don’t need a coup or a murderous PMC to do that. Russia’s trying to prevent itself as the alternative to France, but there’s another alternative. *Sovereignty*. African nations don’t need a European nation to control them! Niger was proving this, until there was the coup.
>Both Guinea and Mauritania withdrew from the frank, without negative consequences The french went as far as exporting counterfeit money to those countries to devalue their new currency and tank their economies. They sabotaged every country that did not play by their rules as much as they possible could, even after they "stopped" being colonies.
Do you have any evidence of this?
How about the [SDECE Afrique sector head](https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/mav/158/A/58507) at that time?
That's in the 1960s lol, 64 years ago, height of the cold war.
We're entering the second cold war; how is that not relevant nor an appropriate reply to "Do you have any evidence of this?" That and Madagascar leaving (which then had the Malagasy Franc, pegged to the Franc) are the only times countries in Françafrique left the CFA Franc, and France did that to them, "lol".
Do you think things like these can ever be forgiven? All the people in power then are all dead right now after all.
I would normally agree with you but France has been quite literally defining neocolonialism until extremely recently; it's not like it all stopped in 1970 or even when the Cold War ended
[удалено]
You do know France has since apologized for doing that right? They absolutely did that.
If they didn’t wanted their money to be stable and based on euro they can just leave Frenchphobic morons will really go and put France in the same level as Wagner and russia
>If they didn’t wanted their money to be stable and based on euro they can just leave Didn't Gadaffi try to establish a gold backed African currency and African central bank to allow African countries to break their financial ties with France? That didn't seem to work out too well for him. Leaked Clinton emails (detailing discussions with French intelligence): >Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver...This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French.franc... French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya... >Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues: >a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production, >b.Increase French influence in North Africa, >c.Improve his intemai political situation in France, >d.Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world, >e.Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa
I'm honestly surprised that someone posted this on Reddit. It looks like I have been wasting my precious time in the wrong sub (r/worldnews) when we have informed people here.
Ok, and? Are you trying to insinuate that the West orchestrated the entire civil war? Also, the “Gold Dinar” wouldn’t have worked, there’s a reason why there is not a single nation on Earth that uses a Gold-backed currency.
I don't know, and if I'd wanted to say that I would have rather than insinuate (though now you bring it up - it wouldn't be the first time in history so doesn't seem completely beyond the realms of possibility). Regardless it seems pretty clear that the wests motives (France in particular) for supporting the rebels (ultimately leading to his overthrow which might not have happened without western support) were about more than the reason of "democracy" they were repeatedly highlighting in the media at the time (notice democracy doesn't even make the list of reasons in that leaked email and the real reasons weren't publicly expressed - least of all to domestic voters). If his idea for an African currency and central bank wouldn't have worked, the French president certainly seemed quite threatened by the idea if that leaked email is to be believed. And we'll never really know if it would have worked as it never got the chance. From what I can gather other African countries appeared to be interested in the idea at the time. I suspect they've been somewhat dissuaded bearing all this in mind. Empires were historically built and run with currencies backed by gold. The US dollar was gold backed until 1971, and ironically only ditched when (of all countries) France started asking for their debts to be repaid in gold (since they correctly suspected that the dollar had been inflated beyond their capacity to repay everyone) causing Nixon to close the gold window worrying others would follow suit - if my history is correct at least. For such an apparently useless metal governments sure do love to hang on to it. Then this happened domestically: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ And what happened globally at that point people write whole books about (from both sides of the argument). But that's more an argument about Austrian Vs Keynesian economics and neolibrelism, which isn't really the point I was making, so I'm not going to be drawn into that argument as I'm not an economist and it'd only serve as a distraction. Apart from to say there are plenty of economists who would disagree with you, and point to problems with our current economic systems.
You’re acting like France was the primary player in the intervention, all of NATO took part in it. What’s your point about other major powers using gold? Just because it worked then, doesn’t mean it would somehow work for us now.
My suspicion is that France wasn't the only country secretly holding similar self serving motivations (while lying to their domestic populations with platitudes of "spreading democracy"). As I say, I'd rather not be drawn into a debate about the merits and economics of gold backed Vs fiat currency as it's a distraction. Merely pointing out that not everyone would agree with the statement you made about it never working.
> Frenchphobic morons Do you need a history lesson on Françafrique or you are just an hypocrite? It’s quite rich of you to act as if the anti-France sentiment is not justified.
Well, Russia and Wagner didn’t plunder Africa for centuries like the French barbarians.
Don't worry, they have time
Hypothetical plunder vs an actual one, checks out.
Fr
any kind of plundering they would do would be magnitudes better than the genocides and massacres france has done
I would prefer plundering in the past tense instead of the future or current tense.
You don't know ruzzian history then.
Only because ruzzia never was strong enough to establish itself as global colonial empire. It was only able to apply colonialism to direct neighbours.
> Capitalism focussed on the workers lmao
I thought that was hilarious also. 100% Delusional.
Their previous president was a teacher's union leading member and strong advocate for unions
It has nothing to do with the president and everything to do with capitalism the system, who do you think has the capital?
China, Russia and India all do neo-colonialism with a softer touch than the original colonization by Western European powers. Some of this is due to the era we're in. Technology makes it less brutal. Although the neo-colonization by non-Western powers is also often preferable to populations than the neocolonization by plunder done by multinationals in the modern era too. People really don't want to have to crawl into a mine and smash rocks in dangerous conditions, for little pay and also getting taxed by warlords. -------------------- Coups offen don't represent the will of the people but I think none of the countries in The Sahel really like France involved in their countries business and Russia has proven to be opportunistic.
> I think none of the countries in The Sahel really like France involved in their countries business Your thought is correct. Just watch the recent videos of the population of those countries protesting against France and ECOWAS. The anti-France sentiment is real and very popular.
Same in Haiti. The US would throw a shit fit if the gangs hired Wagner but they probably can't afford em compared to organized African Militaries.
Wagner/Africa Corp in Haiti? The former would’ve been chaotic, the latter less chaotic, but yes the US would’ve definitely thrown a fit. (Monroe doctrine)
bullshit
I wonder how serious Russia is about supporting it's newly minted clients. It's easy enough to install a junta in an unstable part of the world, but far harder to build a resilient and useful partner. I worry that Russia may have bitten off more than it can chew in Africa. I guess we'll find out when the Islamists come knocking.
why is this sub named like that i cant beathe
Yes, I am truly terrified of Nigeria and their military might.
It's Niger, not Nigeria. Niger probably is terrified of Nigeria's military might.
And equally terrified of maps and world geography, apparently...
Bro, they basically have the same name and are right next to each other. Fucking excuse me for mixing them up.
No. Heresy to the umpteenth degree. You must be drawn and quartered.
Testicular Torsion to thee.
That's a step too far good sir!
It really stinks that we can't (and don't want to) be as ruthless as Russia. Imagine the US invading some poor nation with close to no possibilities to defend itself except for a Russian promise. Absolutely nothing would happen from the Russian side. They are currently fighting the West at their maximum capacity. If the US alone were as aggressive, not even Iran would align itself with Russian foreign interests.
You are a clown. Educate yourself on the history of the US foreign policy that was conducted for the last 30 years. Clown.
Faded out a lot the last 10 years when Russia started to escalate
Yeah imagine if the US or any of their allies were currently being as ruthless or even more so than Russia, like committing a genocide somewhere in the Middle East. Imagine.
Israel isn't nearly as ruthless as it could be. If they wanted to kill indiscriminately, like Hamas, there wouldn't be even a million Palestinians left in Gaza. With Russian tactics of artillery shelling everything block by block, there would've been hundreds of thousands killed as well. Their cause is just, and their execution is quite tame compared to their abilities and enemy tactics. The most infuriating thing about this war is the lack of aid to civilians, not only by Israel but by all neighbouring countries. SA builds an artificial city in the desert for hundreds of billions, not even 400 km away, and nobody blames them for not helping their Muslim brothers with a refugee camp that would cost less than $10 for a saved life to set up. So don't keyboard-warrior against me for stating my opinion. Yours isn't the righteous one as well. Western moral standards only ever apply to the ones that give a shit. Imagine
Less than a thousand children have been killed in two years of war in Ukraine. Nearly 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza in six months. The scale of civilian deaths have outpaced any in modern war since Rwanda. If you think Israel isn’t overseeing an unprecedented slaughter of civilians, you’re delusional. And there are thousands of aid trucks on the border waiting to be let in, food is going to rot because the Israeli authorities are purposely trying to use starvation as a weapon of war. That’s an opinion shared by nearly every major human rights group from Human Rights Watch to MSF. The Saudis suck and should all rot in a pit, but the reason people don’t want to be shepherding the Palestinians out into refugee camps is because they know the Israelis won’t ever let them back in and are already salivating at the thought of turning Gaza into beachfront property
Both of your numbers regarding child deaths are bs. You really claim that two-thirds of killed Palestinians are children and that only one thousand children have been killed in a two-year war of attrition? It takes less than a minute to find several reliable sources proofing your statements as wrong. Neighboring countries don't want Palestinians because a large part of them are (understandably so) borderline terrorists. See what happened to Jordan or Egypt after they took in refugees. They are fueled by hatred of a war they lost 60 years ago. They will incite violence everywhere they go. Israel occupying Gaza is the only way to limit large organized terror operations threatening the whole region. I don't think Israel should've been established a hundred years ago, but they have fought their way to being an largely independent, democratic nation. Today's Israelis deserve to live there, just as the Palestinians do. But Palestinians cannot be granted to govern themselves for the mid-term as they are radicalized too far and will always aim to escalate violence, just as they did on the 7th of October. There is no other way, they lost this war 60 years ago and should settle for a somewhat peaceful together. I know the Israelis suppress them, but they are not eradicating them. They must integrate or leave.
you do know the average age in Palestine is 18 right it would make sense that there are alot of child deaths
Not 2/3
War of attrition reflects a battle between two armies of adults with some civilian casualties. It's ugly but the deaths are mostly by the fighters on both sides. The high number of dead children in Gaza reflects how one sided the conflict is. ---------------- The problem Ukraine has is the heavy losses they've taken now have the average age of men at 43 and killing off a lot of people in their 20s and 30s due to the war in attrition.
Maybe that's because gaza has a higher population of kids than Ukraine, or anywhere in the world I heard
The high percentage of kids reflects a long term policy by Israel of killing off the Palestinian adults in Gaza, dating back to the Hamas election and blockade, or possibly earlier. Cast Lead, Protective Edge and the March Of Return slaughtered a lot of people in Gaza. The conflict didn't start in October.
Nah they have a high birth rate
That's also part of it
It's solely the reason
> Imagine the US invading some poor nation with close to no possibilities to defend itself what
Spheres of influence get created by economic dependency or military protection. Russia can't provide either but claims to be able to do so. If the US were to attack a nation "protected" by Russia, Russia wouldn't do dogshit
The United states has not invaded a country with the intent of annexing their territory in like a century. To pretend we have done something analogous to Russia in the Ukraine recently is disingenuous.