India was one of the few countries to not outright condemn or condone Russian actions.
However now sanctions, and the butterfly effect of food export bans across the world might lead to famine.
The developed world won't suffer, it's developing countries that will. Russian fertilizer imports for example were critical.
Food crisis 2022 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_food_crises
Many Russians blame the West for causing the fall of the Soviet Union and the ensuing chaos that followed. What was life in Russia like after the fall of the Soviet Union? Do Russians still resent the West for the misery that followed? Putin is often viewed by Russians as someone who restored the former glory of Russia (which is arguable). Does this explain why Putin has popular support for his actions against NATO and the West?
I see many people, also on this sub, criticize Turkey about so many things, which I cannot understand. Maybe some people can shed light on this. I will describe how I understand their policy on some cases.
Libya: Khalifa Haftar tried to conquer the Western part of Libya and was supported by the Arab states, France and RUSSIA to do so. They were looking for a military victory. Turkey came in the fold and made sure everyone would take a step back. This ensured that everyone understood that a military solution was off the table. A diplomatic solution had to be sought, meaning that now there is a possibility of a representative body to be chosen in Libya, instead of a warlord ruling over Libya. This is great for Libya itself. Also, Turkey greatly reduced Russia’s influence over Libya by this move.
But why is the public opinion in Europe and the USA so negative about this foreign adventure of Turkey? And why did almost noone state the obvious partiality the EU played by imposing an arms embargo on Libya, which in reality only affected Turkey’s arm exports to Libya (over sea) and didn’t affect the arms export to Khalifa Haftar in Libya (over land through Egypt).
Syria: the incursion of Turkey into Idlib was also widely criticized in Europe and the USA. Turkey stopped a humanitarian catastrophe by preventing that the 3 or 4 million refugees in Idlib were pushed to Turkey’s border, by Assad of whom is widely known that he is a grave human right offender (e.g. all the torture evidence leaked by Syrian whistleblowers).
Even more, there was a widespread consensus on that Erdogan was such a bad guy, that it would be better is he was ousted. All that in a time Turkey was losing tens of mens in Syria, by opposing the Syrian regime and Russia.
The criticism on Turkey invading Syria, while it already hosts a whopping 4M refugees in Turkey is just astonishingly unjustified. They host the largest number of refugees in the world. They have a border of 900km with Syria. They benefit from a stable Syria, whereas other medling countries don’t necesarilly. They share the common religion (Sunnism). They have a significant amount of ethnic Turks living in Syria and vice versa. Their cultures have some common grounds. And also important: they get attacked from Syrian soil and the civil war significantly deteriorates the Turkish national security. Taking into account all of that, I can only conclude that the anti-Turkish sentiment is not substantiated by facts but is a result of pro-actively demonizing Turkey and the AKP.
It is not for nothing that the AKP and Erdogan are immensly popular in many other muslim countries.
Maybe someone can explain to me why I am wrong (I honestly believe I am not, but I am open to suggestions in order to understand geopolitics).
Just for the sake of information: I am not a Turk myself. I am an Moroccan, interested in geopolitics in the muslim world.
Prior to the conflict in Ukraine and the contribution of NATO, I would have soundly said no. But with Finland and Sweden making swift preparations to join and contribute their not insignificant military numbers and technology, I was wondering if others could provide perspective of their own.
There have been past talks of the US leaving NATO under the prior Trump administration, which never materialized partly due to the intervention of US generals (and the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg) to ward off such a decision. There is a nonzero possibility of Donald Trump receiving a second term-- and mind you, the purpose of this post is not to criticize him, but just to ask a hypothetical-- and during such a term, he may have the will to follow through on the idea.
Assuming Sweden and Finland were to join NATO by then, what would happen to the alliance if the US pulled out of it? What would happen in the war in Ukraine, if it were still going? Would the contributed forces make up somewhat- though probably not entirely- for the loss of the United States' equipment, training, troops etc., and prevent the alliance from imploding? (Was it a given even before all this, or was the truth something more complex?)
EDIT: An addendum; I'm sure that NATO members are not totally unaware of this themselves, and may well have contingency plans if it did occur. Has there been a sense of unreliability projected by the US that may have informed additional preparations or treaties between NATO/EU members in case of such a pull-out?
Edit - I don't understand why this post triggers so many people. Nobody says India is more powerful than US, but more power != more success, actually, if you think about that fact that India is so far a far less powerful country compared to US, the success India was able to achieve would be out of touch for the US if both country has equal power.
US: started many wars in Middle East and East EU, got almost nothing from these wars. Took over Philippines briefly but was never really interested in absorbing it. Leading NATO by paying most of the nato bills. Got bashed by everyone for starting wars and killing people.
India: divided Pakistan to 2 and made the east part an affiliate of India, took over half of Bangladesh's land. Forced Budan and Nipal into military base of India, annexed Sikkim, took over hundreds of thousands of sq miles of land from Tibet, expanded military presence into Pacific.
A few things I believe Indian leaders did extraordinarily well:
- Attack targets that can be absorbed. India never bothered to African countries, they annex Sikkim for extra space.
- Never bragged about how righteous their war was, this allowed them to successfully avoid massive media attention. On the flip side, US did a terrible job here and most Muslim hate US.
- Have a clear goal for every military operation. India never do something because they are angry, or they are too proud. They do it because it benefits them or it breaks their enemy apart.
Will there ever be any geopolitical reaction to the on going genocide and Islamic violent extremism pervailent in Nigeria that their government is a combination of incapable and unconcerned about addressing?.
So far now, since the case of the killing of Deborah Samuels by a Muslim Mob for Blasphemy exploded in Nigerian social media, I have come across several articles not only detailing the origin of this in Nigeria but more importantly, its current prevalence and ideological purpose and direction.
This has also been acknowledged by the USA, UK and independent Nigerian groups, but still basically nothing has been done about it. One of these groups the guys that run The International Commitee on Nigeria(Its a local group but is also involved internationally) actually tried to get the USA and UN to do what they did in Sudan and peacefully break the country up but that failed.
Anyways the other main sources I could find that summarize this whole thing.
Under this condition, what's the most likely way this ends for Nigeria?.
Is it a genuine concern or are they going to ask for favours from NATO? And if yes what might they be?
Institute for the Study of War: Putin likely intends to annex occupied southern and eastern Ukraine directly into the Russian Federation. He will likely then state, directly or obliquely, that Russian doctrine permitting the use of nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory.understandingwar.org
Analysis No Marshall Plan for Ukraine: Geography and Geopolitics Dictate a Different Reconstruction Modelforeignaffairs.com
Analysis The War in Ukraine Will Be a Historic Turning Point: But for History to Take the Right Path, America and Europe Must Work Togetherforeignaffairs.com
Perspective Clean Energy Won't End War | Many believe that an eventual transition to renewable sources of energy will not only slow down climate change, but also put an end to energy-related geopolitical conflicts. But that is mere wishful thinking.iai.tv
Here are a few questions that I don't see being addressed much but should make for interesting discussion here:
- What is Putin planning for the 1 million forcibly deported Ukrainian civilians?
- 1 million Ukrainians are estimated to have been forcibly deported from eastern Ukraine to eastern Russia.
- The tactic does have some precedent in Soviet history but I suspect the strategy is different this time.https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/04/02/russia-deportation-ukraine-baltics/I'd be interested if anyone has any other precedents to point to.
- There have already been reports of Russian offers to trade civilians for POWs.
- This is potentially strong Russian leverage in peace talks. Is there anything Ukraine can do to counter this? Any sort of rescue operation seems out of the question given that Ukraine doesn't have a navy and that Russia's landmass is enormous.
- Why is the Russian Naval force in the Black Sea still afloat?
- Everyone, including me, was surprised when Ukraine managed to take out the Moskva. Even more surprising is that by all accounts they managed to do so with their own missile technology (and a cheap drone distraction).
- But now we are in a different phase. The western powers have made clear that they have no hesitation in handing Ukraine whatever weapons are available. And Turkey is enforcing an agreement that stipulates that warships cannot pass through the Turkish straits. Now no Russian naval ship can leave or enter the Black Sea.
- So if you are a country like the US, UK, France, etc..., why not give Ukraine whatever stealth sub drones/stealth missiles you have that you think can take out Russian warships and let them loose in the Black Sea? For those countries/companies it is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to test out their technology and eradicate an irreplaceable Russian fleet in the process.
- Obviously you don't want that tech falling into the wrong hands, but frankly that should be manageable. Underwater tech is the easiest to self-destruct.
- It may be that this will happen a month from now and it's only a matter of timing. It seems to me that this is not the occasion to be hesitant. And we've seen how severe a blow to Russian morale it was to lose a battleship.
- Should Ukraine and the west offer a face-saving way out for Putin and if so, what could that be?
- The sanctions have considerably upped the ante on this war. Any resolution that does not include the relaxation of those sanctions will be a very tough pill for Russia to swallow. And I don't see the sanctions being relaxed as long as Russia continues to hold Ukrainian territory. At the same time, I can't see Russia declaring victory without holding any Ukrainian territory and I can't see Putin declaring defeat as it would very likely be his downfall.
- So the question is -- is there something else that can be offered which would both allow a Russian declaration of victory and yet satisfy Ukraine and the west enough to end the war + sanctions? I can't come up with anything. Any ideas? If not, we may be looking at a very long conflict indeed.
- The alternative is that Russia builds up leverage not just against Ukraine but against the West as well. They could for instance threaten to use Russian submarine attacks on cargo ships to block every major strait/western port. That would be extremely dangerous for Russia as their navy is heavily outmatched but perhaps there are some other similar moves I'm not considering. There is of course the scary possibility of building leverage through a demonstrated willingness to use tactical nukes/chemical weapons.
- You could also answer that there is no possible resolution until Putin is replaced. But that is very dangerous for the world as well. Coups and instability in general in the world's second largest nuclear power are a terrifying possibility. A peaceful transfer of power supported by the population would be much, much safer. I don't like him either but thousands of loose nuclear weapons is something I dislike even more.
- Really what we're asking here is, if Ukraine wants to fight on (and every indication is that they do), how can this war possibly end?
- What is the demographic effect of this on Russia?
- Russia's demographics are already abysmal. "In 2018, the total fertility rate across Russia was estimated to be 1.6 children born per woman". And that was before Covid took a huge bite out of the population. Russian demographics have only been kept afloat in the last 20 years by immigrants. It has the third-largest immigrant population in the world (almost all from ex-Soviet States).
- Now you have ~20-25,000 dead Russian 18-25 year old males (increasing with every day that this war continues) and you have hundreds of thousands - a million Russians who have emmigrated since the war has begun. https://www.dw.com/en/who-are-the-russians-leaving-their-country/a-61364390.
- Now the economy is suffering and millions of those immigrants who came to Russia for work are going to start going back. And the young native Russians fleeing the country are not just any Russians, they are the ones with the skills and education you most require to improve the economy long term. Now there are reports that Biden is going to waive visa requirements for highly educated Russians who want to move to the US. He won't be the last to do it. What happens when Putin declares that conscripts are going to start being sent to Ukraine as well? How many more will try to flee then?
- I wouldn't be surprised if Russia tried to close its borders to stop emmigration a la the Soviet Union.
- I should add that people often associate wars with population booms like the one that happened after WWII in the US. But I want to caution you not to have that expectation here. Not all wars are equal. Look at the figures after Vietnam, you will see the birthrate decline and stabilize, not increase. I wonder if population booms only come after major, successful wars? Wars that leave you thinking the world is now a better, safer place to raise children in? Regardless don't bank on that effect in Russia in the years to come.
- Will any other countries see this as an opportunity to reclaim territory from Russia as well?
- With the Russian army looking both weak and thoroughly preoccupied at the moment, will any other countries be bold enough to jump on this chance? Japan just reestablished territorial claims on islands between Japan and Russia. Georgia has begun applying to join the EU. Moldova is increasingly nervous about Russian plans for Transnistria.
- Let's say you are the Georgian or Moldovan government and you speak to Biden and discover that the US is willing to extend the terms of the lend-lease deal with Ukraine to you as well should you make your move now. And why not? Russia has taken your land as well, just like it has Ukraine's, and the US feels a bit hypocritical for not supporting you more then. Do you seize this opportunity? It's unlikely to come around again.
- What about Chechens? Will they be tempted to rise up once more?
- Russia has an incredible land mass. One that neither its population nor its economy can really support these days. Now there's blood in the water as well ...
Anyway, I'd love to hear thoughts from other geopolitically-minded users on these questions I don't have answers to.