UAE backed mercenary army , when you have Colombian ex military , Ukranian(?) , Libyan forces with the active collabaration of neigbouring countries like Kenya,Somalia and Chad - in the movt of weapons/fighters and looting of mineral resources. Calling it a 'civil' war is a misstatement.
All conducted under the perview of the UAE which has been heavily lobbying the EU and US to turn a blind eye to its activities as long as it stays the course and fronts more in the 'Abraham Accords'.
Basically Ukraine had a lot of small "security" (mercenary) groups post 2014. In the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, those group were basically told "please go oppose Wagner in Africa", and some found themselves in Soudan (and other in Armenia). I'm not sure if now they're paid by local forces. I don't have any information post-war though, my friend left the comapny and came back in France since the war.
No, it's Africans killing Africans themselves. Most Emiratis don't give a crap what's happening around the world either. They have their own. Thousands of companies have their headquarters in Dubai like Halliburton etc. UAE doesn't manufacture weapons or sell them. There are many foreign weapons manufacturers based there. China, USA, Europe, Israel are probably some of the world's largest arms dealers and they distribute to everyone. The US sent almost $25 billion of weapons to Israel in the past 3 years. If stuff is passing through UAE ports, then that's another thing. And no one gives a crap about Sudan's gold either. UAE has had a huge gold market for a long time and some of the largest gold sellers are Indian companies based there.
The videos that are coming out are straight up horrible, do not watch. Civilians casually being moved down like it is sport, with the killers laughing and joking about it. Child soldiers shooting anything that moves. ISIS-levels of depravity.
For context, this isn't Hemedti's (leader of the Rapid Support Forces) first time of trying his hands at genocide successfully. He was one of the Janjaweed leaders enlisted by the Sudanese government for the early 2000s Darfuri genocide that led to murders of >300k locals at the hands of Arab militias.
That campaign helped Hemedti build up his profile, eventually become one of Sudan's power brokers (kinda like Prigozhin to Putin), amass eye-watering amounts of money (from gold mines yielding bullion that's laundered in Dubai), which in the latter case has been used to arm a substantial personal army.
The RSF were joined at the hip with the Sudanese Army until 2023 when they tried toppling the military to seize power and make Hemedti the national leader.
What are you implying? That coverage of Sudan's civil war is unacceptable because of the terrible things happening in Gaza? I'm genuinely confused. There is literally constant coverage and discussion of war and genocide in Gaza.
Not defending the parent, but this kneejerk whataboutism might be due to Dem senator Cory Booker being cornered on Gaza in an interview and trying to sidestep it by saying "What about Africa? No one is talking about Sudan!" despite him himself rarely allocating significant time during his 25-hour marathon monologue in the senate to talk about the issue (Sudan) in detail.
Refugees per capita is a more interesting metric to look at though, it wouldn't change the sadness of it all but as a metric it's much more relevant than just total amounts.
The important difference here is that nearly all of those countries both border those where the conflicts are and are ethnically and culturally similar to the conflicted regions. This is not true for western Europe (which is where most of these migrants want to go) which neither borders any of the conflicted regions nor is (or, locally, was) culturally similar to them. The exception to this in the list you quoted is Poland which does have a border with a country at war - Ukraine.
If war breaks out in Finland there will be a swell of Finnish refugees entering Sweden and Norway but I do not foresee them flying halfway across the globe to request asylum in Afghanistan even if that country were to be flourishing then. Why, then, is the opposite seen as normal?
The claim was that "Somehow [Europe] are morally and financially responsible of every failed society".
Which is demonstrably false, since Europe has fewer refugees than African, South American or Middle Eastern countries, in absolute numbers and percentage of population and financial resources.
Your claim that "countries both border those where the conflicts are and are ethnically and culturally similar to the conflicted regions" is similarly coarse and clueless, like a Chinese person saying Spain and Finland are ethnically and culturally similar because both are Western.
You also seem to have forgotten to switch back to your sockpuppet account.
Which sockpuppet account would that be? Please point it out by name - you said it, now you prove it. An inquiring mind - and possibly more than one - wants to know.
My whole shtick here on this forum is that I just say what I think without worrying over whatever 'karma' hits I might get. Given that no sockpuppets are needed when you follow that approach I'm really curious to learn I seem to have some so, educate us.
The answer to that question depends on who you ask. If you ask it to the electorate the answer is a more and more resounding 'yes, now, please'. If you ask it to the majority of politicians the answer ranges from "we can not, we're bound by international treaties" to "you're a racist/fascist/*-phobe for asking such questions'. There are a few politicians who have made it their motto to outdo each-other in calling for more stringent border policies and those politicians get a lot of votes but they mostly end up being sidelined through what is euphemistically dubbed a 'cordon sanitaire'. If one of them ends up having some power eventually the result is nearly always the same: they do no do what they have been promising all those years, pointing left and right for their reasons for not fulfilling their promises.
In theory the political systems we have here in western Europe which are based around forming coalition governments should allow for reaching compromises between the 'open borders' factions and the opposing 'our nation comes first' factions. In reality things often don't work that way due to the practice of shunning those parties which claim to want to act on the calls for more stringent migration policies, labelling them 'far-right/racist/xenophobic' and turning them into pariahs. The proponents of this practice do not seem to realise all they achieve is more polarisation and further radicalisation on all sides of the spectrum and that a single large event could end up giving power to one of those radicalised factions whether that be in their envisioned 'nazi takeover' style or along the lines of the premise of Houellebecq's 'Soumission' which foresees islamic law being implemented in France. A more likely outcome is for more countries to drop out of the EU to create local blocks like the Visegrad countries and the Nordic countries.
You could just... enforce your immigration laws. Weird concept I know, right? There's this weird thing countries have called Coast Guards, Border Police, etc. Should check them out.
Whenever any country falls into instability, people try to get away as far as possible. A huge chunk of the European populations of North & South America, Australia, etc. were fleeing persecution, war, and just general disorder.
Their only advantage was that these didn't have states organized enough to stop European settlers. Right or wrong, if you don't use state resources to stop refugees, you don't get to complain.
UAE backed mercenary army , when you have Colombian ex military , Ukranian(?) , Libyan forces with the active collabaration of neigbouring countries like Kenya,Somalia and Chad - in the movt of weapons/fighters and looting of mineral resources. Calling it a 'civil' war is a misstatement. All conducted under the perview of the UAE which has been heavily lobbying the EU and US to turn a blind eye to its activities as long as it stays the course and fronts more in the 'Abraham Accords'.
> Ukranian(?)
Basically Ukraine had a lot of small "security" (mercenary) groups post 2014. In the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, those group were basically told "please go oppose Wagner in Africa", and some found themselves in Soudan (and other in Armenia). I'm not sure if now they're paid by local forces. I don't have any information post-war though, my friend left the comapny and came back in France since the war.
No, it's Africans killing Africans themselves. Most Emiratis don't give a crap what's happening around the world either. They have their own. Thousands of companies have their headquarters in Dubai like Halliburton etc. UAE doesn't manufacture weapons or sell them. There are many foreign weapons manufacturers based there. China, USA, Europe, Israel are probably some of the world's largest arms dealers and they distribute to everyone. The US sent almost $25 billion of weapons to Israel in the past 3 years. If stuff is passing through UAE ports, then that's another thing. And no one gives a crap about Sudan's gold either. UAE has had a huge gold market for a long time and some of the largest gold sellers are Indian companies based there.
The Sudan conflict affects us all. It’s an unbelievable tragedy.
The flip flopping list of allies and opponents is a tangible primer on the last couple of years in geopolitics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Support_Forces
https://archive.ph/hcMcS
The videos that are coming out are straight up horrible, do not watch. Civilians casually being moved down like it is sport, with the killers laughing and joking about it. Child soldiers shooting anything that moves. ISIS-levels of depravity.
"preparing for mass genocide"
is kind of not in the article or it's title.
does UN can do anything about this????
The UN has been in the region for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mission_in_Suda...
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mission_in_Sout...
But the scale of the conflict is beyond all comprehension. And capacity to make a difference outside of proxy funding by state actors is minimal.
For context, this isn't Hemedti's (leader of the Rapid Support Forces) first time of trying his hands at genocide successfully. He was one of the Janjaweed leaders enlisted by the Sudanese government for the early 2000s Darfuri genocide that led to murders of >300k locals at the hands of Arab militias.
That campaign helped Hemedti build up his profile, eventually become one of Sudan's power brokers (kinda like Prigozhin to Putin), amass eye-watering amounts of money (from gold mines yielding bullion that's laundered in Dubai), which in the latter case has been used to arm a substantial personal army.
The RSF were joined at the hip with the Sudanese Army until 2023 when they tried toppling the military to seize power and make Hemedti the national leader.
[dead]
[flagged]
What are you implying? That coverage of Sudan's civil war is unacceptable because of the terrible things happening in Gaza? I'm genuinely confused. There is literally constant coverage and discussion of war and genocide in Gaza.
Not defending the parent, but this kneejerk whataboutism might be due to Dem senator Cory Booker being cornered on Gaza in an interview and trying to sidestep it by saying "What about Africa? No one is talking about Sudan!" despite him himself rarely allocating significant time during his 25-hour marathon monologue in the senate to talk about the issue (Sudan) in detail.
[flagged]
They do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Support_Forces
Another wave of refugees incoming to Europe. Somehow we are morally and financially responsible of every failed society
Countries housing the most refugees:
Iran 3.5 million
Türkiye 2.9 million
Colombia 2.8 million
Germany 2.7 million
Uganda 1.8 million
Pakistan 1.6 million
Chad 1.3 million
Poland 1 million
Ethiopia 1 million
Bangladesh 1 million
Source: UNCHR, https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics
Refugees per capita is a more interesting metric to look at though, it wouldn't change the sadness of it all but as a metric it's much more relevant than just total amounts.
The important difference here is that nearly all of those countries both border those where the conflicts are and are ethnically and culturally similar to the conflicted regions. This is not true for western Europe (which is where most of these migrants want to go) which neither borders any of the conflicted regions nor is (or, locally, was) culturally similar to them. The exception to this in the list you quoted is Poland which does have a border with a country at war - Ukraine.
If war breaks out in Finland there will be a swell of Finnish refugees entering Sweden and Norway but I do not foresee them flying halfway across the globe to request asylum in Afghanistan even if that country were to be flourishing then. Why, then, is the opposite seen as normal?
The claim was that "Somehow [Europe] are morally and financially responsible of every failed society".
Which is demonstrably false, since Europe has fewer refugees than African, South American or Middle Eastern countries, in absolute numbers and percentage of population and financial resources.
Your claim that "countries both border those where the conflicts are and are ethnically and culturally similar to the conflicted regions" is similarly coarse and clueless, like a Chinese person saying Spain and Finland are ethnically and culturally similar because both are Western.
You also seem to have forgotten to switch back to your sockpuppet account.
Which sockpuppet account would that be? Please point it out by name - you said it, now you prove it. An inquiring mind - and possibly more than one - wants to know.
My whole shtick here on this forum is that I just say what I think without worrying over whatever 'karma' hits I might get. Given that no sockpuppets are needed when you follow that approach I'm really curious to learn I seem to have some so, educate us.
Have you tried enforcing your own border policies with this weird thing called a coast guard or border police?
The answer to that question depends on who you ask. If you ask it to the electorate the answer is a more and more resounding 'yes, now, please'. If you ask it to the majority of politicians the answer ranges from "we can not, we're bound by international treaties" to "you're a racist/fascist/*-phobe for asking such questions'. There are a few politicians who have made it their motto to outdo each-other in calling for more stringent border policies and those politicians get a lot of votes but they mostly end up being sidelined through what is euphemistically dubbed a 'cordon sanitaire'. If one of them ends up having some power eventually the result is nearly always the same: they do no do what they have been promising all those years, pointing left and right for their reasons for not fulfilling their promises.
In theory the political systems we have here in western Europe which are based around forming coalition governments should allow for reaching compromises between the 'open borders' factions and the opposing 'our nation comes first' factions. In reality things often don't work that way due to the practice of shunning those parties which claim to want to act on the calls for more stringent migration policies, labelling them 'far-right/racist/xenophobic' and turning them into pariahs. The proponents of this practice do not seem to realise all they achieve is more polarisation and further radicalisation on all sides of the spectrum and that a single large event could end up giving power to one of those radicalised factions whether that be in their envisioned 'nazi takeover' style or along the lines of the premise of Houellebecq's 'Soumission' which foresees islamic law being implemented in France. A more likely outcome is for more countries to drop out of the EU to create local blocks like the Visegrad countries and the Nordic countries.
You could just... enforce your immigration laws. Weird concept I know, right? There's this weird thing countries have called Coast Guards, Border Police, etc. Should check them out.
Whenever any country falls into instability, people try to get away as far as possible. A huge chunk of the European populations of North & South America, Australia, etc. were fleeing persecution, war, and just general disorder.
Their only advantage was that these didn't have states organized enough to stop European settlers. Right or wrong, if you don't use state resources to stop refugees, you don't get to complain.