If you say so chum. No skin off of my back what your opinion is....
Russia - General Discussion.
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
If you say so chum. No skin off of my back what your opinion is....
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?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This article suggests one option Russia has to hurt Western interests, banning overflights thus imposing huge costs and hassles for Western airlines. Can’t see China being particularly thrilled, especially prior to the Olympics.
www.defenseone.com
What If Moscow Cancels Airline Overflight Rights?
The interconnected world gives Russia tools that the Soviet Union never had.
www.defenseone.com
I disagree with your assessment, I think big_zucchini was just trying to explain better what he actually meant in his previous post.
I agree with big_zucchini, Ukraine is much closer to a democracy than e.g. Saudi Arabia. However, I find support for this position elsewhere. For instance the Democracy Index, compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the research division of the Economist Group, a UK-based private company which publishes the weekly newspaper The Economist. 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.
Other relevant indices are from freedomhous.org, they calculate a "democracy score". Here, Ukraine got 39, and Russia 7. Poland got 60, the Baltics 78-84. Saudi Arabia was not included. However they also calculate a "freedom score"; Ukraine got 60, Russia 20, and Saudi Arabia 7.
There are of course many issues with such "scores", however, the advantages are also clear. Less subjective, and less biased.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
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.
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.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The Saudi Royal Family supports Wahhabism, thus it is not surprising Western indexes rating democracies would place Saudi Arabia on the low end, deserved IMHO as I am anti-organized religion.
Probably time to put aside the who is most democratic debate.
Probably time to put aside the who is most democratic debate.
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.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
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.
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.
Democracy is hard to achieve, not doubt about it. We saw that after the "arab spring" where most countries experiencing the "arab spring" ended up in autocracy again...
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.
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.
Singapore is modern then both and closer to western values. Still Singapore is not a democracy, nor on way to become one.
Ukraine is closer to RF if anyone else, you can argue it as western. It is even not important. Liberal value are important. So eastern Japan is democracy, while Argentina that are more western till 1983 was not democracy.
Now liberal idea incorporated in western values.
I am not really biased, neither i can't see problems in Ukraine. But You must make distinction on one flaw supported by law and another that exist contrary to law.
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?
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'.
The West is not to blame for a lot which has gone wrong in the Arab world [the Arabs are great for cocking things up] but it shares a lot of the blame; spanning the decades and decades it has been involved and interfered in the region.
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.
Thing that hold middle east from democracy is religious tensions and lack of state awareness, it is mostly tribes, or clans, or dynasties there.
Example of country that religion hold them back is Iran.
You can look at UAE as example that tribal rule hold back, they have pretty open society, still democracy hardly can be advanced.
No one cares about elected part. Without implemented human rights it holds very little meaning.
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, and heavily interfering with both countries, they both rapidly developed into rich, modern, highly advanced democracies.
Sorry for the digression, let's get back to blaming "the West", shall we?
Sorry for the digression, let's get back to blaming "the West", shall we?
No but is is in the right neighborhood; flanked on some sides by democracies and the political elite is tilted to the West.
Far more to it than that I'm afraid.
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.
Last edited:
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?
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.
Right. So in your opinion it's fine to have an unelected government as long as it implements human rights?
Last edited:
"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.
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.
Not exacly. In my opinion elected part is part of political human rights and should be treated as such.
It makes no sense to give it more weight, then this particular right deserves.
United States in time f WW2 had elected leadership and had racial discrimination in the same timeframe.
Democracy for sure, but not fully liberal one.
In modern times it would be called aparteid state maybe. lol
So context does matter as well.
Democracy is both state and process. Need to judge what current state is and where does it headed to.
Some more thoughts on Russian potential for dealing with Ukrainian air defenses. I know during the 5 day war helo-based EW was used, and in recent years Russia took delivery of a number of Rychag-AV systems, which are based on new-built Mi-8s. They were specifically designed with defeating GBAD in mind. Details on it are scant but I recall that at least one year, a whole 18 were ordered, so assuming procurement continued, it's plausible that there are anywhere from 20-50 of them in service. There's also some attempt to mount EW on UAVs, namely the Leer-3 system, but it's not designed to counter IADS. The last info I saw on OKR Prorubschik was 3 Il-22PPs being refitted with it. Since then it's been mostly silent, but this silence coincided with a greater overall level of secrecy and drop in transparency for Russian defense procurement, so it's not too surprising that this would be kept under wraps if the program did produce results.
I think the biggest hurdle will be the planning and execution, with some resource constraints. In principle the tools are there, especially with good planning and careful distribution. However the Russian military is not known for those things so I suspect things will get tricky.
I think the biggest hurdle will be the planning and execution, with some resource constraints. In principle the tools are there, especially with good planning and careful distribution. However the Russian military is not known for those things so I suspect things will get tricky.