Invasion of Ukraine

[cuervo72]

I mean fuck, right now you'd probably be for someone, anyone arming Gaza. Would you go there? You seem gung ho on that, why aren't you there?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

And what, bring my own ammo? Yes, they will want my fat 50yo ass that has never fired a gun. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

I don't mind my tax money going to them though. Which is really all that they are asking for. (And it doesn't go directly to them anyway. It goes to weapons producers, which are going to get their money anyway, ultimately one way or another. Might as well have those weapons go to someone that urgently needs them.)

Of course you don't mind. You have no skin in the game. It's not your life on the line and it'll be your grandkids who has to deal with the debt you left them.

And I'm being serious, they will take you. They are taking anyone willing to fight. If this is vital to the safety of America as you imply, why not lend a helping hand?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I mean fuck, right now you'd probably be for someone, anyone arming Gaza. Would you go there? You seem gung ho on that, why aren't you there?

I am gung ho on my tax dollars not being used to fund a genocide. I'm not calling for more war like you are in Ukraine, I'm calling for the opposite.

[flere-imsaho]

Look, Rainmaker, if you're not willing to travel to Gaza on your own dime and stand in front of Israeli tanks, how much can you really be against genocide?

[cuervo72]

No, it's not my skin on the line, it's the Ukrainians. All they are asking for is the ability to defend themselves. Or is the answer "tough titties, you couldn't do it on your own* so you don't deserve to survive?" Is that the answer you give the Gazans too? Have I misunderstood your stance there, are you essentially saying "it's ok for Israel to do what they are doing, just not on our dime"?

You sound like you're in Lindbergh territory here -- not worth defending anybody, any time. Shouldn't have worried about Europe in 1940, either! I mean, we didn't benefit from involvement there right? Just had to end up paying down the war. As for those Ukrainians with "skin in the game" -- and for Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Moldovans, Georgians...I picked up an old book last night, and happened to read these passages (warning, it's long):

"Yes, the proof was there. Surely there are certain things about being a battlefield which can be taken for granted by everybody; the first being that if men fought well there for a worthy object they proved themselves valuable human beings. How can it not be so? There are objects which are worth fighting for: the fate of the Slavs under the Turks proved it once and for all. That non-resistance paralyses the aggresssor is a lie: otherwise the Jews of Germany would all be very well today. A race that has not good soldiers must be enslaved by any neighboring race that has them: a race that has not the soldierly characteristics of courage and discipline cannot in later ages refuse to fight unnecessary wars and insist on proceeding with the work of civilization. If ever peace is to be imposed on the world it will only be because a large number of men who could have taken part in the drill display by the Guards or Marines or at the Royal Tournament turn that strength and precision to the service of life.

This I believe to be true, in spite of the obvious defects of many professional soldiers, which afflict them surely not because they are soldiers but because they are professional. It is doubtful whether army officers of high rank are more limited or unsound in their general ideas that lawyers or doctors of an equivalent degree of specialization. It is in any case unlikely that a soldier would hold as silly ideas about any sphere or civilian activity as vast numbers of civilians would hold about this battlefield. To countless thousands, even millions of people in England and America, the slopes of Kaimakshalan would have no meaning whatever except as a place where a lot of people had perished ingloriously, as they might have in a railway accident, because they were stupid enough to get mixed up in a fight. Many Americans, owing to their inexperience of aggression, sincerely believe that all wars are planned by armament manufacturers and that no people ever suffers any real maltreatment at the hands of another. They would not credit the simple fact that the Germans and Austrians and Bulgarians had invaded Serbia with the intention of murdering the inhabitants and seizing their property. Not having been educated to accept the possibility of such an act by the contemplation of a large area where the Turks had certainly done this very thing to the Balkans, and had gone on doing it for five centuries, they feel that this must be a fable spread by Vickers or Skoda. There has also been in America a wave of cynicism, entirely mindless, destitute of all content, save "Oh, yeah" and "So what," which, by a strange twist, results in a bland acceptance of the whole universe that has never been surpassed by Christian Scientists. An automatic scepticism regarding stories of atrocities leads to a rosy belief that every member of an invading army behaves with the courtesy of a cinema theatre usher. The Serbs must have been mistaken in believing that the Germans and the Austrians passed through village after village, wrecking houses, smashing the furniture, emptying corn and pouring wine and oil into the mud, and trampling on the icons. Any peasant in the invaded countries over thirty can tell you that it was so, but innumerable Americans, over and under thirty, can tell you that it was not so. This battlefield was therefore to them an area of pure nonsense, discreditable to the human race.

And so it is to some extent to many English intellectuals. If the Serbs had done something...something...something, they need not have fought. So one feels, when one is young, on hearing that a friend has to have a dangerous operation for cancer. Surely if she had not eaten meat, if she had not eaten salt, she need not have had cancer; and by inference one need not have cancer oneself. Yet cancer exists, and has a thousand ways of establishing itself in the body; and there is no end to the ways one country ay make life intolerable for another. But let us not think of it any more, let us pretend that operations are unnecessary, let every battlefield seem a place of prodigious idiocy. Of this battlefield, indeed, we need never think, for it is so far away. What is Kaimakshalan? A mountain in Macedonia, but where is Macedonia since the Peace Treaty? This part of it is called South Serbia. And where is that, in Czechoslovakia, or in Bulgaria? And what has happened there? The answer is too long, as long indeed, as this book, which hardly anybody will read by reason of its length. Here is the calamity of our modern life, we cannot know all the things which it is necessary for our survival that we should know. This battlefield is deprived of its essence in the minds of men, because of their fears and ignorances; it cannot even establish itself as a fact, because it is crowded out by a plethora of facts."

-- Rebecca West, Black Lamb and Grey Falcon

Just swap out some names here and there as seen fit.





* I mean, domestically the options for self-defense are usually given as either a) rely on a police force, b) rely on the community, c) arm yourself. Seems like we're prepared to say no, none of these are valid in your case, you should just submit.

[flere-imsaho]

Rainmakeur, a French citizen in the late 18th century: "A war of independence a whole ocean away is not our problem, even if a) we have interests in the same geographical area and b) it's against one of our longstanding rivals."

[RainMaker]

Drop the 6th grade social studies narratives about America fighting for the freedom and independence of others. We're ethnically cleansing Gaza right now and bombing half a dozen other countries on a regular basis. We just got done invading 2 countries and killing at least a million people for nothing. The last century of American politics has had us invading countries and setting up violent authoritarian governments around the world. Name a country in Central America we haven't fucked with.

You don't get to stand on some moral high ground when this country has done far worse than what Russia is doing.

And you might have some case if the war was winnable in some way and not just putting our safety at risk so that Raytheon can get a higher dividend next quarter.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Look, Rainmaker, if you're not willing to travel to Gaza on your own dime and stand in front of Israeli tanks, how much can you really be against genocide?

Me standing in front of a tank doesn't end the genocide. Our tax dollars being withheld does.

[flere-imsaho]

You can't know that for sure. Maybe your heroic sacrifice galvanizes internal opposition and brings the situation swiftly to a halt. There's only one way to know....

[RainMaker]

Pretty big difference in the two. One is wanting your tax dollars to fund an unwinnable war and force innocent people into conscription so they can die for your amusement. The other is wanting to stop sending our tax dollars to a genocidal regime so that their ethnic cleansing stops.

You'd think your neocon stance would change after the past few decades of disastrous foreign policy and all the blowback. But maybe you'll prove Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney right after all.

[RainMaker]

Nothing is funnier than Democrats who screamed about Bush's wars becoming proponents of his foreign policy. Can't tell if it's a genuine belief that those people were right or just a reaction to go against anything Donald Trump might support.

[cartman]

One big plus I see for continuing military aid to Ukraine is that we get to see how our weapon systems work against actual Russian troops and equipment, without any of our troops being in harm's way.

[cuervo72]

I still don't quite get why what Israel is doing is ethnic cleansing but what Russia is attempting to do is not. I don't understand why Putin is seen as more or less benevolent here in your eyes.

I'm mostly in agreement with Kasparov's assessment here -- if you appease Putin, he will not stop. Also, he is already at war with the West, if you acknowledge it or not (and if you turtle up and play isolationist or not). Yes, he will keep playing the nuclear card every time anyone threatens to stand up to him, but he does it because it works, and will keep doing it. And he'll keep waging war on the West, which has proven to him unwilling to stop him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

One big plus I see for continuing military aid to Ukraine is that we get to see how our weapon systems work against actual Russian troops and equipment, without any of our troops being in harm's way.

There's like 7 other countries we're bombing. We spent almost 20 years bombing Iraq and Afghanistan. Pretty sure we can test our weapons out there.

Progressing a war where innocent people will be killed and maimed for your human experiments is some sick Nazi shit.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I still don't quite get why what Israel is doing is ethnic cleansing but what Russia is attempting to do is not. I don't understand why Putin is seen as more or less benevolent here in your eyes.

I would be opposed to giving billions in weapons to Russia to do what they are doing to the Ukrainians too.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Progressing a war where innocent people will be killed and maimed for your human experiments is some sick Nazi shit.

Ok, thought exercise. Ukraine doesn't get aid. What happens next?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There's like 7 other countries we're bombing. We spent almost 20 years bombing Iraq and Afghanistan. Pretty sure we can test our weapons out there.

Progressing a war where innocent people will be killed and maimed for your human experiments is some sick Nazi shit.

military weapons being used against an attacking military is now sick Nazi shit? Give me a fucking break.

Yes, war indeed sucks. And innocent people are killed and maimed. Are you making a statement that the main purpose of sending military aid to Ukraine is so we can see what happens to non-combatants? If so, you need help.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Ok, thought exercise. Ukraine doesn't get aid. What happens next?

I don't know. That would be for that region to decide. Ukraine and Russia have had a long and storied history. It is not our conflict and has no impact on our country. At least no impact that is worth hundreds of billions of our tax dollars.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

military weapons being used against an attacking military is now sick Nazi shit? Give me a fucking break.

Yes, war indeed sucks. And innocent people are killed and maimed. Are you making a statement that the main purpose of sending military aid to Ukraine is so we can see what happens to non-combatants? If so, you need help.

You are the one that said the value in this arrangement is we get to see how our weapons work. I don't know how else to view that statement.

If there is another reason you believe that sending hundreds of billions into this conflict is valuable to the United States, please let me know. I don't think "testing" is one of them.

[cartman]

we have a military to protect our national interests, correct?

we have developed weapons that were designed for the military to use against other militaries, correct?

the hope is that they are never used, but if they are, you would want them to be effective against the other military, correct?

if this could be proven without putting any of our military in harm's way, that would be a good thing correct?

it sucks that the weapons are having to be used. but the information on how they perform in a real world scenario against one of our biggest potential military adversaries, and how the adversary responds to them, can only help to strengthen our own military.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You'd think your neocon stance would change after the past few decades of disastrous foreign policy and all the blowback. But maybe you'll prove Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney right after all.

I think you'll find that the typical neocon stance was one of proactive intervention, i.e. fomenting conflicts so that the U.S. could intervene. Which, you know, is not this. But then again, given your posting record on political issues, maybe I'm assuming too much.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know. That would be for that region to decide. Ukraine and Russia have had a long and storied history. It is not our conflict and has no impact on our country. At least no impact that is worth hundreds of billions of our tax dollars.

"Long and storied history." You make them sound like Packers/Bears.

(And you sound like you're parroting RT talking points. Of course being a former anti-Clinton BernieBro, maybe you were never really far from that camp after all...)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

"Long and storied history." You make them sound like Packers/Bears.

(And you sound like you're parroting RT talking points. Of course being a former anti-Clinton BernieBro, maybe you were never really far from that camp after all...)

Yes, I'm all for the Kremlin because I don't want $120 billion in tax dollars to go to an unwinnable war in Ukraine while we have a lot of uses for that money in our own country. You could cover the insulin for everyone in this country for the next half decade with that money. I think that was the estimate to fix all the seriously damaged bridges in this country. It's a considerable sum of money.

But yes, if you don't agree with spending countless tax dollars on this war and putting our nation at risk for escalation, you're on the side of the Russians. Just like if you didn't support the Iraq War, you sided with the terrorists. 20 years later, we're bringing back the hits.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think you'll find that the typical neocon stance was one of proactive intervention, i.e. fomenting conflicts so that the U.S. could intervene. Which, you know, is not this. But then again, given your posting record on political issues, maybe I'm assuming too much.

What do you think the expansion of NATO was? It was one of the core beliefs of neoconservatives!

[GrantDawg]

Boy, you guys will never stop feeding that troll.

[Edward64]

I like the Chuck & Joe approach.

No problem in the counter attack & invasion after Oct 7 but there is a point where continued escalation is (I suspect) more of a Bibi staying in power. Let's have elections and see what Israel believes is the right approach.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s warning that Israel risked becoming a “pariah” and his call for new elections marked a momentous moment in modern US-Israel relations.

Schumer’s rebuke of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Thursday contained extraordinarily strong language for a senior US politician criticizing the Israeli government. It was all the more remarkable coming from the New York Democrat who has a long record of staunch support for the Jewish state.

I also like US taking lead in building a platform/dock/pier to ferry in supplies. Details are lite but I saw below. I've read 2M meals a day supposedly and questionable effectiveness, but it is something.

On the ground in Gaza, there will likely be allies, contractors and aid agencies instead.

Biden said the Israeli government will maintain security at the pier. It is unclear who will be unloading the aid at the dock and moving it to shore. Experts have questioned how Israel, which has crippled aid delivery through land borders, would allow aid supplies via the sea.

No boots on the ground, smart move.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Boy, you guys will never stop feeding that troll.

Come on, he is the smartest guy in the room and never wrong, just ask him.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Boy, you guys will never stop feeding that troll.

which one? there are several.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

which one? there are several.

I'll be a troll if you are handing out Extra Toasty Cheeze-Its

But really I can of have a fear that simply handing more ammunition simply won't cut it anymore. Unless the West is willing to supply manpower than we are kind of just delaying the inevitable.

Rainmaker isn't wrong that $60 billion is a whole lot of money. Not that our politicians would spend it wisely...

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Boy, you guys will never stop feeding that troll.

I don't think he's a troll, but I definitely don't think it's safe to assume that he is. The difference between troll and somebody who honestly believes things that are just different than other people believe is .. not always obvious. If we jump to 'they're obviously wrong, ergo they can't be serious', that's a dangerous place to go.

[flere-imsaho]

RM's not trolling, he's naive and a sucker for far left propaganda. And I'm not feeding him, I'm mocking him for my own entertainment.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

RM's not trolling, he's naive and a sucker for far left propaganda. And I'm not feeding him, I'm mocking him for my own entertainment.

More people on the right than on the left voted against sending money to Ukraine. Read the news.

[RainMaker]

Also, if you are someone who supports the billions of weapons to Ukraine, your plan didn't work. Ukraine is losing. The Russian economy is booming. Putin has never been stronger. You were wrong on how to handle this. Take the L and move on.

[cartman]

It is also an incorrect assumption to say that the billions are spent on new things. We are sending over things already in inventory. In some cases it is even at a cost savings, since we are no longer having to maintain and then later decommission the items. If you donate items to charity, is that new money coming out of your pocket?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

More people on the right than on the left voted against sending money to Ukraine. Read the news.

OK, they're naive and wrong too, so what?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Ukraine is losing. The Russian economy is booming. Putin has never been stronger. You were wrong on how to handle this. Take the L and move on.

No one cares about the Sudetenland, anyway.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK, they're naive and wrong too, so what?

Yeah it's all 4D chess going on that people are too naive to understand. No one can really explain what we gain here, but trust me bro, it's worth it. Just like the last 80 years of foreign policy intervention.

[PilotMan]

Again, you talk like you know for sure that all good things would have happened if certain things were never done. In fact, you come at most positions this way, and maybe it's why you've never seen anything positive in any move you've ever disagreed with? You're so certain, and really, that's the downfall in your critical thinking, that if only 'this had been done' that something else would have happened that you agree with, that you can't see how far off base from reality that you really are.

I guess it comes down to your view that things are totally black and white. Things almost never go your way, you're constantly seeing the negative, and you're always justified that everything is wrong.



The last 80 years have seen the longest sustained era of global peace in history. Yet, that's not how you sell it. It's not all down to the USA, but you negate the realities to focus on your pov, which here, is simply wrong.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Again, you talk like you know for sure that all good things would have happened if certain things were never done. In fact, you come at most positions this way, and maybe it's why you've never seen anything positive in any move you've ever disagreed with? You're so certain, and really, that's the downfall in your critical thinking, that if only 'this had been done' that something else would have happened that you agree with, that you can't see how far off base from reality that you really are.

I guess it comes down to your view that things are totally black and white. Things almost never go your way, you're constantly seeing the negative, and you're always justified that everything is wrong.

The last 80 years have seen the longest sustained era of global peace in history. Yet, that's not how you sell it. It's not all down to the USA, but you negate the realities to focus on your pov, which here, is simply wrong.

Is the argument that you can't say something was bad because you don't know if something worse could have happened instead? That if we didn't help kill a few million Cambodians, something worse might have happened? That if we didn't fund the mujahideen, that something worse than 9/11 might happen? I guess there is a butterfly effect scenario that could play out.

It just seems like a cop out to me and a way to avoid having to defend the indefensible. Who's to say Sandy Hook was bad because maybe the shooter killed the next Hitler and we just didn't know? Is that the shade of grey you're looking for?

[PilotMan]

Dude, you're being purposefully obtuse. You must abide by the logic that the atomic bomb being used to end WW2 was the greatest tragedy ever inflicted by the US because of how grotesque it was, right? End of story, no other arguments, or positions are valid because the result of that decision was so devastating. And you act like that for every single decision, and that there can be no other possible answers.



Sure the US has lots of destabilizing impacts on regions they have operated. Sure there have been incidents where decisions were made that hurt people, but saying that if those decisions hadn't been made that everything would have ended all hunky dory, and that it was ONLY due to the fault of the US is the argument that you're making. Your isolationist attitudes put you and Rand Paul as buddy/buddy besties.

Things you deem as indefensible are not, in all likelihood, not totally indefensible. Just because they didn't ask your permission and fill you in on all the details beforehand doesn't mean there weren't valid reasons. Your use of hindsight being 100% perfect (in your mind) isn't the best lens to view the world through.



Your example is again, obtuse, and on purpose. By that logic every killing anywhere in the world is defensible for any reasoning. So no, that's not exactly a valid argument. Or the "grey area" I'm looking for. Just a weak strawman.

I just want you to admit that you see the other side of things, and that sometimes bad shit happens. And that you're also wrong about things you've said, or thought. If you can't even be grown up enough to do that, then why even bother talking with people?

[RainMaker]

I am saying that the past 80 years of interventionist policy and proxy wars have been a failure. The fact that no one can really point out instances of success in that regard tells the story.

Now maybe this is different. Maybe after all these years they've cracked the code. It seems to me that Ukraine is losing and that Russia is doing pretty well despite our "sanctions". But maybe we'll look back in 10 years and view the hundred or so billion dollars as a success.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I am saying that the past 80 years of interventionist policy and proxy wars have been a failure. The fact that no one can really point out instances of success in that regard tells the story.
.

Re: proxy wars. For the record, I have answered this in 2 separate responses to you.

See https://forums.operationsports.com/f...postcount=9595

Taiwan
Philippines

There’s more but let’s start with these two.

[RainMaker]

We lost the Chinese Civil War.

Philippines didn't turn out bad if you think they will remain an ally in the reason. It required installing brutal tyrants and horrendous human rights abuses to make it happen, but I guess we've never really cared about that stuff. So I guess in those 80 years, trillions of dollars, and countless innocent lives, we sort of have an ally in the Philippines to show for our foreign policy.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We lost the Chinese Civil War.

Philippines didn't turn out bad if you think they will remain an ally in the reason. It required installing brutal tyrants and horrendous human rights abuses to make it happen, but I guess we've never really cared about that stuff. So I guess in those 80 years, trillions of dollars, and countless innocent lives, we sort of have an ally in the Philippines to show for our foreign policy.

The US wasn't really involved in the actual Chinese Civil War when Chiang Kai-shek was kicked out (post WW2 fatigue). Debatable if US "lost" the war and definitely we didn't lose it (pre-Formosa, Taiwan) because of our intervention, arguably we lost it because we didn't intervene enough.

We supported Taiwan since then. Not bad in helping create and safeguard the 22nd largest economy in the World, which now is more strategic (location, chip foundries) than the GDP rankings would indicate.

Philippines. No one said it was going to be perfect, no country has a clean past (if you disagree, propose the country that will pass the RM litmus test and give me an opportunity to critique that country). Let's focus on the end results. Philippines is stable now, the 34th largest economy in the World and again, is more strategic (ports) than the GDP ranking would indicate.

Seems like a couple good wins.

[RainMaker]

The Philippines is not stable now. They are ruled by authoritarians who imprison and kill dissidents, journalists, teachers, and activists. The country is rife with corruption.

If you want to call it a win because they let us use their bases and such, that's fine. But it's a pretty fucked up country.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Philippines is not stable now. They are ruled by authoritarians who imprison and kill dissidents, journalists, teachers, and activists. The country is rife with corruption.

If you want to call it a win because they let us use their bases and such, that's fine. But it's a pretty fucked up country.

Sorry, we’ll agree to disagree.

Philippines definitely has issues (who doesn’t) but is not a fucked up country. Admittedly, if you are in a drug gang, you will get fucked up. But hey, majority of Filipinos support the draconian measure against them, even if innocents are caught in the crossfire sometimes. US, western democracy does not work for many countries, allow for ‘localizations’ even if that means a strong man.

And hey, they democratically elected a new guy who is less authoritarian than Duterte (but probably more corrupt). So yeah, pretty stable.

[RainMaker]

That stuff is fine to you because you don't really care about innocent people, especially if their skin is a few shades darker. A normal, empathetic person would be disgusted by extrajudicial killings of innocent people.

The Philippines is not a democracy. They jail and kill political opponents. They have massive issues with their electoral system. Dictators can be popular too, especially when you don't have a free press and have targeted teachers. Just look at Mao.

[RainMaker]

It is wild to see the people who talk about what a threat Trump is to democracy support so many dicators who oppose democracy. Seems like those statements about democracy are quite hollow.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That stuff is fine to you because you don't really care about innocent people, especially if their skin is a few shades darker. A normal, empathetic person would be disgusted by extrajudicial killings of innocent people.

The Philippines is not a democracy. They jail and kill political opponents. They have massive issues with their electoral system. Dictators can be popular too, especially when you don't have a free press and have targeted teachers. Just look at Mao.

Of course they're a democracy. A "flawed democracy". Not quite up to western standards but still a functioning one.

FWIW.

Democracy index: Philippines ranking goes down again | Philstar.com

Still classified as a “flawed democracy,” the Philippines has scored and ranked lower in the 2023 Democracy Index released by London-based think tank The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) on Thursday.

From 52nd in 2022, the Philippines dropped to 53rd out of 167 countries and territories included in the annual index, which measures the state of democracy across the world.

The Philippines ranked 54th in 2021, 55th in 2020, 54th in 2019, 53rd in 2018 and 51st in 2017.

EIU’s Democracy Index is based on the ratings for 60 indicators grouped in the five categories: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture and civil liberties.

It classifies countries into four regime types: full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.

The latest index found that the number of “full democracies” remained at 24, while “flawed democracies” increased from 48 to 50. “Hybrid regimes” decreased from 36 to 34, while “authoritarian regimes” remained at 59.

[GrantDawg]

There has been an attack at a Moscow concert venue. Several men in military apparel and guns. Several people killed and reports of bombs exploding. The US warned about the possibility of such an attack several weeks ago, so they had some indication of a credible threat.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk