If you say so chum. No skin off of my back what your opinion is....Your reasons don't hold water
If you say so chum. No skin off of my back what your opinion is....Your reasons don't hold water
Was it Russia that toppled a democratically elected government in Ukraine? Then the coup plotters threatened to cancel Russian lease on their military base in Crimea, as soon as the gangsters came to power all they could think about is how to mess Russia up, what will you do if you were Russia?It's also no secret that bilateral relations have dropped to their lowest levels and there is hardly any ''brotherly affiliation'' anymore; certainly not with the generation born after the Cold War.
right so it's the Ukraine which wants to ''fight'' and Russia was forced to do what it did in 2014 and what it's doing now solely because of Ukrainian actions? Do I understand you correctly?
I disagree with your assessment, I think big_zucchini was just trying to explain better what he actually meant in his previous post.This all debate coming because you putting Ukraine as modern nation then Saudi. That's what I'm saying a draw a line because it is nonsense. There's no enough indicators that can justifies Ukraine is more modern nation then Saudi.
Now you move to culture, well that's clearly shown your bias to Arab culture..
Well it's open for you to disagree. However I still see his assessment that Ukrainian culture more advanced is clearly his bias thinking to Arabic culture.disagree with your assessment, I think big_zucchini was just trying to explain better what he actually meant in his previous post.
Hybrid regime is because Euro Maidan is pro west. They're just as much as oligarchy run regime just like in Russia. It's as authoritarian as Russia and Saudis in nature. When a regime using ethnic politics (disguise that as National Security), then it's not an society that transition to Democracy.Ukraine is categorized as "hybrid regime" with a score of 5.88 in 2020. Russia and Saudi Arabia were categorized as Authoritarian with a score of 3.31 and 2.08, respectively. The index is calculated on the basis of 60 parameters.
The debate actually wasn't on who is more democratic but which was more 'modern' and which was closer or being readier for democracy; Saudi Arabia or the Ukraine. Both countries have their respective strengths and flaws; both product of history, economics and the neighbourhood they live in.Probably time to put aside the who is most democratic debate.
Just to add what Sturm put. For me, the debate is because idea being flaunt that Ukraine more Modern and Advance then Saudis. Thus more ready to become democratic society. In truth both are them not ready to be call true Democracy, still far from it.Both countries have their respective strengths and flaws; both product of history, economics and the neighbourhood they live in.
Singapore is modern then both and closer to western values. Still Singapore is not a democracy, nor on way to become one.The democracy assessment by Western media and Think Tank have bias tendency toward whose closer in their mind to Western value. In such omitted the flaws on those closer to West.
Indeed but does the West really desire ''democratic'' Arab nations? If certain Arab countries became truly democratic; what would the West do if the citizens of those newly minted democracies started protesting about certain policies their government's had long been carrying out with the West?where most countries experiencing the "arab spring" ended up in autocracy again...
Like Egypt which actually had an elected government but which was overthrown in a military coup with full support from the Gulf Arabs and with the West keeping largely mum. Despite the odd arms delay or a delay in aid; Egypt remains the 2nd largest recipient of U.S. aid [as reward for signing Camp David] after Israel. We also have Bahrain; where Saudi poured troops in to suppress a largely peaceful Shia demonstration; the West was silent. Hilary Clinton praised Tunisia's leader not long before he was overthrown in the 'Arab Spring'.unlike the countries in the middle east.
You have there small countries and with heavy orientation on EU. It is different situation and it can't be expected that Ukraine will become democracy that easy.On the other hand, countries in Eastern Europe had more success with democracy, although they have also been struggling, but at least most of them have made significant progress, and mostly not returned to full autocracy, unlike the countries in the middle east.
No one cares about elected part. Without implemented human rights it holds very little meaning.Like Egypt which actually had an elected government
No but is is in the right neighborhood; flanked on some sides by democracies and the political elite is tilted to the West.it can't be expected that Ukraine will become democracy that easy.
Far more to it than that I'm afraid.Thing that hold middle east from democracy is religious tensions and lack of state awareness, it is mostly tribes, or clans, or dynasties there.
Well that's your opinion. Some Iranians; who are not supporters of the mullahs, might not agree. It's far more complex than that. Also, Iran actually had an elected leader. He was disposed by the U.S. and the U.K for their own interests. That led to the Shah returning [he was a great friend of Israel and did not get along with the Arabs] and the conditions which led to the 1979 revolution.Example of country that religion hold them back is Iran.
I may not be an expert but I'm pretty familiar with that part of history. Thanks for the history lesson; anyway - appreciate the effort...After WW2, Germany and Japan were completely crushed, almost everything was destroyed, millions were killed. However, in spite of "the West" completely crushing both Germany and Japan, and in spite of "the West" occupying both countries for quite some time after WW2
I'm not in in the business of ''blaming'' anyone.... Merely to state the facts as they stand; even if they are contrary or do not fall in line with the accepted narratives held by many.Sorry for the digression, let's get back to blaming "the West", shall we?
Right. So in your opinion it's fine to have an unelected government as long as it implements human rights?No one cares about elected part. Without implemented human rights it holds very little meaning.
"the West" surely must be criticized for a lot of bad decisions in the middle east. The two examples I provided was merely to point out that at the end of the day, people living in a country probably have more influence on their own future than "external" forces, be it "the west" or from elsewhere. There is a tendency to put too much blame on problems in a country on "external meddling". It is very convenient of course to put the blame on somebody else, and it also helps hide fundamental problems that a country does not want to talk about, like for instance women's rights, or corruption.I may not be an expert but I'm pretty familiar with that part of history. Thanks for the history lesson; anyway - appreciate the effort...
Getting back; what has that got to do with the Middle East and the context of the discussion? Surely you're not suggesting the West is beyond criticism/reproach and shares zero blame for part of the mess the region has long been in?
Ukraine's air defense isn't all that potent. However Russia has had no experience in dealing with such a large and spread out air defense network. Ukraine has large numbers of Soviet-era S-300Ps, Vs, and Buks. In principle destroying any one of these systems is completely doable. Russia has all the information on them, being the manufacturer, and the systems in question are ~35-40 years old. But planning a SEAD/DEAD operation on that scale and executing effectively is another thing alltogether. And while Russia has quite a lot of EW, most of it is ground-based. It's still not clear whether OKR Prorubschik was successful, and if it was how many aircraft were provided as a result. By way of comparison we know for ELINT/SIGINT Russia mainly has two Tu-214Rs, with the last news being that a third was under construction. Given the geography, Russia may be stretched thin on their EW capabilities. On the other hand quite a few of the systems are within the 500km range of Iskander systems from the border, so perhaps the solution will be to organize ballistic missile strikes against them. And recent events in Karabakh show that the older S-300s are vulnerable to small loitering munitions.Does it really? Even if it has a ''potent'' AD network; whether it an survive against a Russian attack which will also include extensive EW remains to be seen.
Not exacly. In my opinion elected part is part of political human rights and should be treated as such.Right. So in your opinion it's fine to have an unelected government as long as it implements human rights?