172
Niger breaks off military cooperation with US, as junta moves closer to Russia (www.scmp.com)
submitted 8 months ago by Alsephina@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archive link

all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Arelin@lemmy.zip 44 points 8 months ago

This is also where the US has/had the largest military drone base in the world.

Seems like a pretty big deal, specially with Burkina Faso seeming like it's going in a socialist direction again.

Also Burkina Faso’s Ibrahim Traore: “Today, our relationship with Russia is primarily strategic. With Russia, there are no restrictions on the equipment we want to purchase. Others impose restrictions on us. They support us in terms of training, logistics, tactical training, and everything else. They provide support in these aspects."

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Well no restrictions on what they can buy beyond the fact Russia has halted and redirected all major military equipment exports to Ukraine for the last three years beyond licensed production and even if the war ended tomorrow it would need to spend years restoring its own military before it could export anything of value.

Tieing the country’s ability to defend itself to a hypercapitalist far right government instead of a less ideologically driven nation like India or China is probably also an indication that the government isn’t very serious about going in a socialist direction so much as an indication that it is trying to whitewash its image with hollow rhetoric.

I mean i’d like to see a challenge to a capitalist dominated world, but this sure doesn’t seem to be one.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago

Why would anyone in a military conflict ally with the US anymore if all it takes is a couple corrupt dipshits in Congress to leave them all completely defenseless during their time of need.

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 8 months ago

That's.... That's not what's happening here. The USA is a rapacious, murderous, destructive, extractive, abusive force. The only reason third-world countries ally with the USA is because the alternative is suffering constant harassment, invasion, terrorism, collective punishment, coup attempts, and civil strife. This has nothing to do with some people in the USA Congress acting as a lightning rod for public ire about defending Ukraine, because the USA defunds ALL of its proxies in ALL of its proxy wars across the history of proxy wars. No one except the American people are gullible enough to believe that the USA will actually back them up a conflict. Europe has been aware of this for probably 50 years, but the rest of the world has been aware for at least a century.

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 17 points 8 months ago

Why should the US have any involvement with a conflict in the middle of africa?

[-] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 15 points 8 months ago

Let's apply that question to the rest of the world. Why the Middle East? Why Eastern Europe? Why Asia? Why Latin America?

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Same reasons as EU, Russia, and China. Global economic/military partners rather than global competition/enemies.

[-] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Lmao is that why the US's entire existence is built on invasions, coups, sanctions and genocides in countries on completely different continents for not being subservient to its capitalist government?

[-] jumjummy@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Same can be said about most of Western Europe though.

[-] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago

Of course. All imperial core countries.

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago

Didn’t it just happen earlier in Asia too? This feels like a humanity problem that we could probably overcome if we had less sociopaths amongst us.

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

I think they were answering the 'should' not 'does'.

As in, those are the good reasons a major power should be involved in foreign nations. The US of course doesn't do anything for good reasons

[-] boyi@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 8 months ago

It needs a 'base', at every part of the world, which would become a hub for any kind of future deployment. Anyway, it's not just the US, it can be any powerful countries. It just matter of how they do it, nice or not so nice way, direct or indirectly. China does it through business, e.g. silk road.

[-] bAZtARd@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago

Uhm... Let's see... Maybe....oil?

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago

I don't see how Russia would be a safer bet though. They're not reliable at all right now.

[-] Arelin@lemmy.zip 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's more because Russia's interests and economy are Global South-oriented already and against imperial core countries. This has become even more true since the current war started.

Though not as much as USSR-times when they used to fund Vietnam, Bangladesh, Korea, Palestine, Cuba, etc without the profit motive that is necessary under capitalism.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -5 points 8 months ago

What do you mean imperialist core countries? Russia physically expanding their influence by invading seems pretty imperialist.

And who do you mean by global south? Are you including Australia, New Zealand, India, etc? Or is it just shorthand for the countries who aren't as close to the US?

Are you saying that some countries want to play the superpowers off each other for maximum gain? If so, I agree with you. And more power to them to some extent, encourage both sides make you a good offer for their friendship.

[-] Arelin@lemmy.zip 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I mean "Imperialism" in the materialist/marxist sense. Aka economic subjugation, unequal exchange or the import of raw materials from underdeveloped countries and "former" colonies and the export of capital via global monopolies and imperialist institutions like the IMF or World Bank. While not letting those countries be able to create their own advanced industries and use their countries' resources for themselves by sanctioning, embargo'ing (Cuba, DPRK, etc), coup'ing (Chile, etc), and invading (Libya, etc) those that try (US imperialism).

US has been the de facto leader of the Imperial core since WW2; it was mainly the UK before.

Global South countries are those victims of imperialism, mostly former colonies and modern neocolonies. Naturally, Australia is not part of that since it's now owned and run by those colonizers. It's an economic/political term, not a geographical one.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 3 points 8 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago

Russia though the Soviet Union also had a trade network and sphere of influence, would that have a similar situation? China is currently building a sphere of influence to leverage as well. Are those categorically different from imperialism as you define it?

I agree the US has had/still has unfair/unequal trade relationships. (I am against them) But I don't think it's uniquely or primarily the US and it's friends problem. I think it's what governments looking out for solely their own interest.

[-] Arelin@lemmy.zip 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

USSR did not practice imperialism in the Marxist/Leninist sense - ie. they did not export capital by keeping countries from industrializing, nor did they have a financial oligarchy like imperial core countries.

China does not enforce harsh austerity policies that the US does via neocolonial institutions like the IMF or World Bank, and loans for the infrastructure they build in partner countries which are necessary for industrialization are often straight up forgiven for long-term cooperation.

Even modern capitalist Russia does not have the global monopolies and complete control over the global financial system that the US does by its dollar hegemony.

the US has had/still has unfair/unequal trade relationships

This is... putting it very lightly. The US government literally coups, invades and destroys countries to keep them from industrializing and developing on their own.

It has waged countless wars across the Middle East and Asia (Iraq, Vietnam, etc), coup'ing Africa's and Latin America's governments (Chile, Congo, etc), keeping them unstable and unable to unite and stand on their own so they have no choice but to rely on those exploitative institutions, and brutally sanctioning and embargo'ing those that do manage to escape their grasp (Cuba, DPRK, Iran etc)

This isn't an issue of the US government being more "evil" or just worse than others, it's a systemic problem of capitalism and Europe and later Japan's brutal colonization of the rest of the world for the last few hundred years which, contrary to what these governments want people to think, has not stopped but merely changed its form to neocolonialism.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -2 points 8 months ago

they did not export capital by keeping countries from industrializing, nor did they have a financial oligarchy like imperial core countries.

Disagree. They definitely did repress the Soviet block counties for their own good. And they definitely had an oligarchy, though it wasn't as straightforwardly financial.

But it sounds like you're using definitions that try to exclude countries that are nominally communist from terms like imperialist, so I can't really do much to argue with your definitions. I'd just say that your definitions aren't what I use or what are commonly used.

[-] Arelin@lemmy.zip 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

What do you mean "repressed"? Soviet states industrialized because of the USSR and its heavy focus on rapid industrialization.

The current extraction of raw materials from post-Soviet states is because of the forced privatization and de-industrialization under capitalism. Which included Russia until very recently; they've started nationalizing some of these industries again, though now under capitalist rule and primarily for their benefit.

[-] tiredturtle@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

From one imperialist cradle to another

this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
172 points (93.0% liked)

World News

32378 readers
496 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
jackmarxist@lemmy.ml
zephyreks@lemmy.ml
OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml