West African Crisis

[Red Velvet]

Hasn’t Mali dumped French as their Official language just these days or so?

Not a good week to be France or Western. Their grip on Africa seems to be diminishing much faster than anticipated, bumped by a mix of a wide variety of factors coming from all over the place.

- Decentralization of hardline Islamic terrorists having disastrous consequences for them after being something propelled by their fun Western Adventures in the Middle East. Do people really think terrorism is over because Islamic State doesn’t control large swathes of Syria or Iraq?? Many just moved to other countries, from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Northern Africa (which includes Sahel region with Mali/Burkina Faso/Niger) or Somalia. Which stimulates more chaos in more places and adds more fuel to anti-establishment sentiment in them.

Like, stuff like stimulating revolutions on Libya only gave these groups more access to resources and weapons they didn’t have access to. Not that they needed chaos in Libya for that, but it certainly helped them.

- Massive Chinese investments basically swallowing up Africa in its entirety for the last decade and creating a new geopolitical reality, something beyond ideological preferences, where China just has more influence in the African continent than the West has.

- Anti-Colonial sentiment getting a revival following the rich countries vaccine nationalism. Westerners who somehow think they can push Global South, especially Africa, into supporting Ukraine out of a narrative of sympathy for anti-imperialism really don’t get that for the average person in those places, it’s their countries that have done this (still do, some places in Africa still pay colonial taxes to France because if their independence!!!), so by bringing up “anti-imperialism” to the center of discussions, you’re only reminding these places more why they should resent you! Lmaaaaao

- Russia seeing all this chaos and using the opportunity to get a new African government on its side, one that is a main source of Uranium for Europe, sticking it up to France in the meantime.

[Red Velvet]

Like, stuff like stimulating revolutions on Libya only gave these groups more access to resources and weapons they didn’t have access to. Not that they needed chaos in Libya for that, but it certainly helped them.

Not just Libya, but we all know how well it went for Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

And as you say it makes a lot of sense that all of Africa and Middle East would hate Europe.

Libya is more significant as a Western Failure of policy because it borders Niger. For the weapon trafficking to reach there is just a quick go to the shop.

Did you know that half of terrorist attacks today happen in Africa? Not Europe or the Middle East, it’s in Africa, mainly the islamic parts. You basically had the Islamic extremist cells the westerners were “fighting” just dissipate all throughout the muslim world where they can hide better in undercover.

[Red Velvet]

The reactions here perfectly encapsulate why this can be expected to continue happening across the African continent.

Pretty much. Westerners always get shook when they realize most people in the South don’t see them as saviors or heroes of democracy like their propaganda tells them they are and tend to resort to self-victimization or reinforcing the behaviors that push Southerners away from them.

It’s not even like the coup in Niger is a great thing for people there to be excited about, they will just keep being explored but more by a different group, but Western reputation - especially French legacy more specifically - is so rotten there that it’s common to see any break with Western alliances like fresh air or something. Like, it’s absurd some African countries still pay colonial taxes to France.

If the Western powers cared about Africa, they would put the same investments and high technology that China is putting in order to assert their influence. So I don’t really understand why people pretend to care about some coup in Africa to put a leadership that is an ally to Russia + China and hostile to the West. In every other single day, the West ignores Africa or takes it for granted.

[Red Velvet]

Ah yes the West's governments famously doesn't invest in infrastructure and technology in Africa, that old trope. God forbid it actually wants to improve the lives of ordinary citizens there, even if by a slither compared to the PRC and Russia, who mainly are concerned about the dictator in place and stabilising such a regime, to a higher degree than the West..

They did invest, in stuff like railways that made getting the resources out easier.

Not only railways and roads, but also hospitals and schools! China, at least.

Russia’s current move is forgiving $23 Billion of debt for African countries. And that’s while Russia is at war against other country, not like they don’t need the money.

The Western world otoh doesn’t offer them anything. They still make Africa pay colonial tax as cost for its independence while only going there to give lectures about embracing LGBT and Carbon emissions that were caused by their own consumption - while Africa simply isn’t the continent responsible for global warming.

[Red Velvet]

France's neocolonialism isn't going well.

Again such a lazy trope.

Of course the origin of these issues is France and the UK and their horrible neo-colonial legacy.

But there's a very effective spotlight being shone on the West while Russia having a PMC there is apprently...ah-OK?

Maoist-Lin Biaoist rhetoric from people who aren't even on the ground there or have never been to an African country. Y'all need to stop listening to Radio War Nerd and masturbating to Jason Unruhe videos.

You’re making a LOT of assumptions about that poster thoughts when they simply only said one simple phrase about French neocolonialism being on a downward trend. Which is simply a FACT regardless of feelings about it.

Even before this coup, just look at Macron reception while touring this year around Africa by African leaderships, you’ve NEVER seen Africa be as assertive and hostile towards France like they’re being now.

It’s the complete opposite logic that has always existed, in 2017 it was Macron going to African countries to mock and humiliate their leaders, now it’s the other way around. Something has changed and I don’t think just in Africa but that’s where you 100% see the strongest reactions.

[Red Velvet]

Calling France neocolonialist in Africa is also “tankie” now?



It’s really becoming the Western scapegoat word for any criticism towards any Western country. Poor innocent French who only ever wanted to help Africa!

[Red Velvet]

Africa's problems are deep-rooted and multi-faceted, I don't think we can necessarily call this coup clearly good or bad simply from the process it followed. Not only are African state institutions weak compared to other parts of the world (military or otherwise), but there's a long track record of Africans getting failed by all sorts of governments.

I think sometimes people focus too much on trying to put something in a box of “good” or “bad” that they miss the point on how history isn’t as linear and simplistic like they act. Not everything is a Marvel movie.

You can make the point for example, that the coup prejudices situation of democracy and regional stability while recognizing situation already wasn’t good in the first place and many people will naturally demand for any change that presents itself as an alternative.

Whether the new government will be better or worse than the previous one, is something no one knows in advance.

[Red Velvet]

Not sure if the meme makes sense though.

I wish more average people in the west agreed with those non-interventionist views of mine, like you suggest with the frequency distribution! If anything it feels the exact opposite with everyone buying interventionism as a solution sold by propaganda.

[Red Velvet]

I'm sure Nigeriens are extremely concerned by how many Reddit Freedom Points™ some Western think tank awards their country.

It will never not amaze me how the people who make such a big fuss over "democracy" simultaneously have no issue with the violent subjugation of the majority of humanity.

Nothing surprises me from liberals nowadays, regardless if they identify as left or right. They only really have theoretical concepts and speeches to validate their politics because they simply have zero to offer to people’s concrete needs and real life practical issues.

[Red Velvet]

I'm sure Nigeriens are extremely concerned by how many Reddit Freedom Points™ some Western think tank awards their country.

It will never not amaze me how the people who make such a big fuss over "democracy" simultaneously have no issue with the violent subjugation of the majority of humanity.

Nothing surprises me from liberals nowadays, regardless if they identify as left or right. They only really have theoretical concepts and speeches to validate their politics because they simply have zero to offer to people’s concrete needs and real life practical issues.

What are the generals offering Nigeriens' concrete needs that the Bazoum administration wasn't? Be specific.

You’re missing the point. First that I didn’t see anyone in this thread saying the coup was necessarily a “good” thing, but that the situation has always been bad and exploitative by multiple parts and people don’t care about it or they treat it as normal.

So this coup in Niger happens and people are all suddenly super invested in Niger “democracy”?? Give me a break, if the protesters weren’t using Russian flag symbolism, we all know that people here would give it the same treatment the regular African coup is always given. At minimum, this thread would get 50% less posts, maybe even more!

But because the connotation is that OMG RUSSIA is winning some influence somewhere, national tribalism from westerners and people who believe they’re westerners makes them perform as if what really concerns them were Nigerien democracy. Yeah okay lol

It’s like “democracy” / “freedom” is always used as an excuse to justify interventions somewhere and it’s always shocking how selfless westerners always are fighting for others rights without any self-interests of their own while still mostly making peoples lives worse abroad on the balance.

Same way stuff like Euromaiden is treated as a “good revolution”, this is automatically treated like a “bad coup” exactly ONLY because of whose side the government is siding with.

“Democracy” is something that doesn’t belong to countries, but to people. And it’s up to them to fight and assure it, it’s not something that can be IMPOSED to anyone like I see some people constantly acting over and over again.

If the coup is indeed bad, it’s not up to me, you or anyone to do something about it. It’s Nigeriens who need to take that stand if the coup is indeed bad. Like, this sounds obvious to me.

This idea that it’s up to you to dictate every place system of government reeks of liberalism false complex of superiority and a performance that only convinces some because people saying this have convinced themselves that after years of propaganda.

Cuba isn’t a democracy either, does that mean the Cuban revolution was a catastrophe for the country? Not really, if anything the results are clearly mixed in my view, with both good and bad consequences coming out of it.

But it’s always funny to me how “Liberal Leftists” are quick to immediately dismiss the complexities of these geopolitical matters and simplify it all as Democracies = Good Guys; Non-Democracies = Evil Villains. You can always cut the “leftist” and keep just the “liberal” with them.

I won’t pretend Niger was in a wonderful ideal situation while as a “democracy”, so is it really up to me to decide whether the government change is good or bad? I honestly don’t feel like it’s in my place to say, neither do I believe things are as linear and simplistic like a Marvel movie as most people here act like.

Only time and people in Niger will be able to really tell.

[Red Velvet]

It's awfully rich of you to insist that the other people in this thread are unconcerned with the material situation when you're the one ignoring the ample evidence that the Nigerien people do not want this and instead philosophizing about whether there's really any first-principles moral difference between democracy and military dictatorship. It's especially curious to see this from a Brazilian leftist of all nationalities and political leanings.

Not sure why? If I can position myself in favor or against Brazilian military coup supported by US in 1964 is necessarily because I AM Brazilian and I am close to the issue and I know that the Republic of 45 period, however unstable and polarized, was much better for the country than the Military Dictatorship that followed it.

I am not going to pretend that I am a Niger PhD specialist like people suddenly have all become so yeah, I can be morally neutral! Especially on something that is unlikely to get explored by the media beyond the surface for an expanded knowledge.

What I see from Niger is some people who are against it and some who support it. But we don’t even know their perspectives because western media doesn’t really a damn about them, look at how the coverage AND discussion of this is all circled around how some Nigeriens were using Russian flags.

What are “revolutions” other than coups that people approve of because they consider them morally good or valid? Wasn’t Euromaidan a good revolution because people liked Ukrainians sticking up to their “oppressors” in Russia? So why Africans sticking up to their “oppresors” in France that much more morally unacceptable? Because France is democracy and Russia is not it somehow changes the way you’re exploited?

There’s an instinct of self-survival and tribalism in this that I totally understand and think it’s 100% valid, but it’s hindered by the hypocrisy of the false narrative of wanting to “spread democracy” everywhere in the world - which only substituted the “Capitalism is better than Communism” one as the propaganda instrument to validate Western superiority and intervention/control over other places in a way that looks nice in history books.

In fact, it’s exactly because I am Brazilian Leftist that I understand that me or my country will NEVER be included in the same “global club” you are, which puts our interests in conflict. And that’s okay?

For example, you suggest the interest in Niger events is mostly driven by a real concern about Nigerien democracy more than it is about a symbolic “win” for Russia. Okay then. If there’s really so much unanimous support for democracy from the government and the people nowadays (good thing!), then why don’t they publically apologize to Brazil for 1964? Or all the other coups or invasions on democratic nations - since you still want to believe it’s all justified as long as the nation is not a democracy - they supported throughout history?

You see, I don’t hate US or the West like you apparently believe that I do, what I just HATE is that it’s impossible to have a direct conversation with you guys because you’re exactly just like the Russians to me in the sense you really fully absorb the propaganda that is fed to you, about being heroes who are supposed to spread and ensure democracy all around the world.

I believe democracy isn’t something anyone outside is responsible for other than citizens of their own country. Whether a change of system is a “coup” or a “revolution” is something only internal dynamics and the people’s own fight will dictate. People outside can obviously have their opinions but the FIGHT itself can only be done by people inside because they’re the ones who will have to sustain and protect that system.

But if anyone points it out they either are called anti-democratic (for not believing that foreign interventionism for the the sake of democracy effectively works in practice, neither it’s desirable) or there’s some speech about hating Americans which puts them as victims or something.

I feel like this debate we’re having is a constant since the 90s, where this interventionism is used harshly and always with the presented narrative of taking down the anti-democratic leader and to implement democracy. How much of it has really worked so far in practice, at least in the terms of the publicly presented goal? Societies need a specific social and cultural backing to sustain democracy, you can’t just go there and put one. It’s just robotic to believe otherwise.

Of course, you should never do stuff to interfere on ENDING democracies that aren’t convenient for you when they don’t align with your interests either. That’s what being a true democrat means.

I just don’t understand why there’s always high concern about the moral theatrics by all places when people would behave in the same exact way if you presented them with the realpolitik argument over the “moral” one. It would be so refreshing and easier to respect if people just got directly to the point.

In the end of the day, people in their everyday lives want better conditions of living and that matters much more to them than who their government is. If the new one can present that and fulfill people’s demands, that’s what will validate it as a “revolution”. If the government flops, that’s what will validate it as a “coup” internally. And I simply don’t have the tarot cards to say or predict what will happen, neither I have access to listen enough Nigeriens from all kinds as a whole to form an opinion other than one of neutrality on this.

[Red Velvet]

Might be because Euromaidan was the general population taking to the streets to protest the government, the president leaving, and elections following soon after. Not the military storming in and saying they’re in charge. For all the lectures you love to give everyone here of not caring about Niger, you’ve been going out of your way to show you actually don’t care by downplaying a military junta seizing power who’s motivation for doing so (that a simple 2 minute google search would tell you) was not losing their jobs

Riiiiight, just like what happened to Dilma and the following Bolsonaro election was all democratic and not a “coup” at all! Same thing about Evo’s reelection, it was people on the streets after all, with democratic elections following!

Apparently, it’s obligatory that in order to something to characterize a coup you need to have a full old-school military takeover! hahaha

Soft coups are a reality as much as people conveniently like to pretend they don’t exist.

[Red Velvet]

Red Velvet, 12th September 1973:

"Well, I think you can't automatically asume the coup against Allende is a bad thing, that's something up for Chileans to decide. If they really oppose it, they should just stand up against Pinochet"

Because as we all Latin Americans know, protesting murderous military dictatorships is very easy and carries no risk whatsoever.

Considering how Chileans in general apparently hate or are usually embarrassed to be associated with Latin American politics, I wouldn’t even put it past the “current left” there to naively turn against Allende in an initial scenario of an “alternate reality” these days with the argument/excuse of risk of “anti-democratic” communist takeover.

Because that was the “excuse” for decades of dictatorship, as you’re well-remembered. To prevent an authoritarian rule, but from the left.

Chile is kinda like Japan in the sense you got the bloodiest treatment possible in comparison to your counterparts that you’re reflective submissive to the people who did this to you while turning against the people who share similar history.

It didn’t surprise me one small bit the “confrontation” that Lula and Boric entered in the EU-CELAC meeting. Luckily, Chilean leadership was by itself on that matter of Ukraine, with only some right-wing led countries like Guatemala on its side.

[Red Velvet]

Oh, give me a fuking break aweonao de mierda. I usually abstain from pilling on you because the cold war switch the Ukraine War caused on westerners' brains usually disturb me more than your stupidity, but this is going too far.

First of all, out of pure contrarianism you have basically argued that military coups are morally neutral affairs and all your arguments could easily be used for things like the brasilian or Chilean coups. And is telling that you didn't address any of it instead going on a tangent on how the chilean left would support Pinochet today.

Now, gate keeping the left of other countries is very rich coming from a would-be Cardoso voter and a Ciro "I will not endorse Haddad against literal fascism" Gomes fanboy. Now, I have always dealt with the likes of you, hyper-online leftists that only care about international rhetoric when analyzing other countries politics because being mean in Twitter is better than doing policy that actually helps society.

You nowadays hate Boric because of your absurd reflexive antiwestern derangement, but the fact is that pre 2021 -if you cared about Chile then- you would be one of his biggest fanboys and would have called Bachelet not a real leftist despite raising taxes on the reach, making university free for the poor, massively expanding free kindergarten and establishing the limited social safety net that Chile has. All of it because she wasn't mean to the US on Twitter while Boric was. Because that's the thing, you don't actually care about what is best for Chile, Niger or whatever, you only care about being thoughtlessly contrarian to whatever the West does or -in this case- "seems" to support. And that's makes you as much as a slave to Western Imperalism as the red avatars on here that cheer every act of US hegemony.

And now, you that love so much saying that the global south or whatever should do what's best for their own interest, explain me how in the actual fukc supporting Russia gives any benefit whatsoever to a country like Chile that is trying to ratify and update to a trade agreement with the EU.  

And lastly, you of all people don't get to say that Boric or PS or PC or "the Chilean "left"" would support Pinochet today because of naivety and pro-westernism. If you don't care enough to think about the countless personal tragedies and atrocities that had shaped most of the people involved in the current Chilean left then please just shut the fuk up you worthless imbécil.

COULD BE USED against us? They HAVE already been and can be used regardless of your condemnation of Ukraine/Russia or not. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.

They spy the heck out of us and create instabilities through the support of stuff like Car-Wash operation to this very day.

I really like the paragraph where you defend Chile’s position being useful for signing an economic deal with the EU though, because at least finally that’s something REAL and not that fake hypocritical speech that Boric made about being our DUTY to do anything.

I mean, if Boric just wants to throw some heat onto the Latin American left leaders in order to up his profile in Europe so that they sign an economic agreement with Chile that’s all fine and even smart I’d say! More power to him!

But you OWN it instead of resorting to the same Western nonsense hypocritical narrative about European Ukraine being a parameter for how everyone else gets treated. Invasions, Coups, Takeovers, Wars ARE continuously normalized in the South even before Ukraine, that has never changed. And you definitely know this better than anyone, looking at how offended you got with only the mere hypothetical idea of current Chilean left turning against Allende.

That’s what unnerves me, it’s always about the realpolitik behind but people still pretend to put a false “moral” lecture where there just isn’t one. And you clearly knows this based on your answer you just gave me! You also agree with me that Ukraine War have made westerners crazy!

I thank you at least for confirming that Chile’s intentions have nothing to do with Boric’s morality speech, but what Chile can gain economically from it. That transparency is what I always approve, regardless of difference of opinions and positions.

Because I can understand you wanting to side with Europeans position on Ukraine for your economic gain, even if you have to throw your Latin American counterparts under the bus for the sake of it. It’s all part of politics after all! But you certainly do NOT capitalize on similar history and pain to try to shame them to have the same position as yours when you you don’t believe in it yourself!

And that’s why I think Boric is trash, not an “inexperienced newbie” like Lula tried to spin. He knows very well what he is doing, unlike what Lula tried to suggest.

[Red Velvet]

https://twitter.com/Sprinter99800/status/1698056432715710552
French tears are the best Western tears because they feel so entitled that they don’t even try pretending to be above it all like other western countries because they don’t even understand why they should be ashamed to say that stuff out loud lmaaao