It losing it power in Africa to China and Russia. It gonna have a population collapse. While it economy remains stagnant due to regulation and strong workers right.

One of the great weaknesses of Russian subversion strategy lies in its unchanging methods. It brilliantly incorporates new means, such as social networks and especially public relations, but it fundamentally operates in a repetitive and stereotyped manner: https://desk-russie.info/2024/06/24/toward-a-putinization-of-france.html

Today I saw a map showing India’s GDP per capita by state. As you’d expect, the coastal states had higher numbers, while the inland states were lower. That maritime states are more economically oriented is a widely accepted consensus. OTH, I noticed that the Himalayan states rivalled the coastal in terms of GDP per capita. The same goes with HDI. This got me thinking, in Europe, aren’t the states in the Alps also the same? Switzerland has a higher GDP per capita and HDI than France or Germany. Similarly, the Alpine portion of Italy is more developed than the rest of the nation. I could throw in Japan and South Korea as well, but they are maritime states as well, so I’m not sure where to position them.

With all this being said, what do you guys think? Do mountainous societies have an edge in development, especially over plains societies?

Almost one year ago, on September 2023, days after a consensus to re-establish the Lachin Corridor for aid deliveries offered a cautious reason to believe the crisis could ease, Azerbaijan projected an “anti-terrorist” offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh: claiming it was targeting Armenian military positions. A glimmer of hope for the troubled region vanished quickly. Hundreds died in the clashes, and Azerbaijan swiftly declared control over the territory. Russia stepped in to broker peace talks, aiming to disarm Armenian fighters and reintegrate the region into Azerbaijan.

Meanwhile, outrage erupted in Armenia. People flooded the streets, blaming their government for failing to protect Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh and demanding the Prime Minister's resignation. The future of roughly 100,000 Armenians hung in the balance. Thousands fled fearing persecution, while others demanded assurances of their safety before considering disarming.

How will it be possible to guarantee a future of peace for the people of the first Christian territory in the world? HOW do Armenia’s borders and geography determine its past, present and future? It was Mao Zedong who said that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” That harsh lesson certainly applies to the long-running battle between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the contested territory known as Nagorno-Karabakh — where Azerbaijan has been imposing its sovereignty by force of arms. Armenia is curently the heart of one of the globe's longest-running STRIFE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdr7zUIEmUU

Usually when a country is invaded in the 21st century, mass protests, riots, and talk of it breaks out everywhere, but the Azerbaijani invasion was largely glossed over without much reaction. Why is this?

I do not understand why Iran is so aggressive in the Middle East. They spend billions on proxies to attack Israel and the US, and have come close to building nuclear weapons. I do not see how these policies are beneficial for Iran when it seems like all it does is result in devastating international sanctions and increase the risk of being bombed by Israel or the world superpower.

Would it not be more beneficial for Iran to simply stop funding proxies and end its nuclear program in exchange for dropping sanctions and reopening diplomatic relations? After all Saudi Arabia has less then half Iran’s population yet over double the GDP despite both countries having similar oil reserves. The Saudis also enjoy close ties and security from the US despite being a monarchy.

I just don’t understand why Iran puts itself under such a security risk of a direct attack from Israel or the US for seemingly no gain except sanctions which destroys their economy.

My understanding is that the UN is basically a forum of countries to discuss things, and that a resolution is basically just the collective opinion of the majority of the world's nations?

So what exactly does it mean when a P5 member vetos a resolution? As an example, lets pretend France invades Spain and the UNSC puts up a vote to condemn the attack and order France to withdraw from Spain immediately. Every country votes yes but france votes no so the resolution doesnt pass. Now what? Its still the case that the majority of the world disapproves of france, and what is stopping the majority of the world to start imposing sancitons or even intervening militarily other than the military and/or economic strength of france? How does france's status as a P5 member and thus the ability to unilaterally veto UN resolutions against it impact how other countries will react to what France does compared to a country who isnt a p5 member but possesses similar economic/military power?

Many Americans these days complain about the amount of aid Ukraine has received, but they may not realize that U.S. aid to Ukraine is only a small portion of the nearly trillion-dollar annual U.S. military budget, much of which has been driven by concerns about Russia over the last 30 years.

Despite this massive expenditure, the U.S. has struggled to fulfill its promises. From commitments made in the Budapest Memorandum to defend Ukraine's sovereignty—stemming from the decision to denuclearize Ukraine—to providing the necessary equipment today, Ukraine has largely had to fend for itself. Remarkably, Ukraine has already managed to neutralize approximately 60% of all of Russia's equipment and much of its trained military personnel, including 100% of those deployed in February of 2022.

Had Ukraine received the resources and support it was promised, the current war of attrition could have been avoided. Ukraine did not create the American national debt problem; rather, it has been performing a crucial task for global security. U.S. politicians explicitly stated that weakening Russia without deploying American soldiers was a key objective. Ukraine has achieved this, yet it still struggles to secure adequate air defenses to protect its citizens.

For context, the U.S. military budget has been:

• 2024: $886 billion
• 2023: $820 billion
• 2022: $876 billion

Meanwhile, U.S. total debt stands at $34 trillion.

Since March 2022, $175 billion has been allocated to support Ukraine, but only $107 billion directly aids the Ukrainian government. Of that, only $60 billion is for equipment, much of which comes from old stockpiles. Despite this, it takes months, if not years, for Ukraine to receive additional air defenses or planes/air support. Without these, launching an effective offensive is nearly impossible. For example, the U.S. has provided only 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, whereas it deployed 3,000 for Operation Desert Storm.

Additionally, the lack of decisive action and clear communication from NATO and Western allies has only emboldened Russian aggression. Instead of leaving Russia uncertain about potential NATO involvement, clear and open red lines have been communicated, leading to a reactive stance rather than a proactive one. This has allowed Russia to exploit every opportunity, making every Western response start with words of condemnation instead of tangible aid and raw power.

It is essential to understand that this is not a noble joust; this is a brutal war with Russia, whether it is hot, cold, informational, or otherwise. NATO is deeply involved, whether they acknowledge it or not. Failing to recognize this will lead to a rude awakening in the future.

Signing a treaty now would only delay a potentially more devastating invasion of Europe in the future. The time to stop Russia is now, and Ukraine is providing the U.S. with an invaluable service. It’s not Ukraine asking for favors; it's the U.S. benefiting from Ukraine's efforts.

If the U.S. continues its extensive military spending, it should be put to effective use to prevent American troops from having to defend NATO territories directly. Otherwise, it may be time for American veterans and civilians who value democracy to volunteer in large numbers to support Ukraine, preventing a potential World War III.

As a Pakistani myself, I always wondered what would happen if the taliban recognized the durand line after taking control and remained a strong ally for Pakistan. Would there still be as many bombings? Would the TTP be weaker or completely abolished?