Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina Quits, Army Coup Amid Massive Protests

[Ginvincible]

Getting a majority middle class will solve those issues. It's like the minute we achieve energy independence, the rest of the stuff will be in place, whether it's military and civilian industrial tech and the military capabilities like SSNs, AMCA, a satellite network, funds to raise larger armies, forex reserves etc.

Sure, but it will take time. A wealthier middle income India might also have different priorities at that time. Why needlessly wage war and take in millions of poor people when things are going well, right?

Even if there's a genocide, as long as Modi's in power the sanctions will come. The only exception is if the Republicans come to power.

I think if there is a literal genocide, yknow people getting lined up, killed and whatnot, and there's a lot of social media and eyes on it - there will be much more willingness on thr international community to let India go in.

Right now, the BD military supports India. So there's not a lot to worry about when it comes to security.

I personally think this changes as the economy worsens. My prediction is thar ordinary Bangladeshis' will increasingly identify with radical ideologies as opportunities wither. We already see thos happening. Their government will take the easy way of just blaming India. Eventually they will just start allowing arms and resources over the border to militant groups operating all over the NE. Perhaps they will actively foment them.

 

[BMD]

The people running your country.

Pffft.

Conventionally, they are 5-6 years away. Nuclear, they are ready right now.

Nuclear just gets the world destroyed, Russia, China, DPRK, Iran. Conventionally the only question is whether NATO would even have to switch to a partial war economy or not.

He was removed by parliament, even his own party voted to eject him.

Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the afternoon, the Rada voted 328–0 (about 73% of its 447 members) to remove Yanukovych from his post and to schedule an early presidential election for 25 May. The resolution stated that Yanukovych had withdrawn from fulfilling his constitutional duties, "which threatens the governance of the state, the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine", and cited "circumstances of extreme urgency".

The resolution to remove Yanukovych was supported by all opposition parties: 86 deputies of Batkivshchyna (Fatherland Party), 41 deputies of the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform (UDAR), 36 deputies of Svoboda (Freedom Party), 30 deputies of the Communist Party, as well as 99 independents. Furthermore, 36 deputies of Yanukovych's Party of Regions voted for his removal. There were no votes against. Of the remaining deputies, 115 were absent and 6 did not vote.<a href="Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>204<span>]</span></a> Under the 2004 constitution, parliament chairman Turchynov became acting president.

Yes to both.

That's where European and Indian versions of democracy differ. If we vote on major directional policies we expect them to be implemented, otherwise elections are just a meaningless popularity contest where policies and words are pointless, may as well be a smiling contest.

That's the problem with being economically and militarily weak. Resistance is impossible.

So all countries not militarily strong should be invaded then in your opinion? That's basically what you're saying. I see it differently, the countries attempting annexations should be economically and militarily crippled by the world.

Yanukovych was keen on joining the EU. But the West made proposals that would weaken Yanukovych's political base. And there was absolutely no guarantee of actually joining the EU even after doing the EU's bidding. Yanukovych found out there's no such thing as a free lunch, which Zelensky also found out by April 2022.

Yanukovych only changed his mind immediately after meeting Putin, he literally had a seemingly split personality disorder. His parliament accused him of treason when he announced his new direction.

Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On 18 June 2015, Yanukovych was officially deprived of the title of president by parliament.<a href="Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>23<span>]</span></a> On 24 January 2019, he was sentenced in absentia to a thirteen year prison term for high treason by a Ukrainian court.<a href="Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>24<span>]</span></a> In various polling conducted since his departure from office, Yanukovych was ranked the least popular president in Ukraine's independent history.<a href="Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>25<span>]</span></a> <a href="Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>26<span>]</span></a> Yanukovych has also given his name to a collective term for blunders made by Ukrainian politicians: Yanukisms.<a href="Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>27<span>]</span></a>

Since the revolution, Yanukovych has been convicted in absentia of high treason against Ukraine. He is wanted by the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, charged with responsibility for mass murder of the Maidan protesters, as well as abuse of power, misappropriation of public funds, bribery, and property theft.

Forget NATO, there wasn't even an option for Ukraine to join the EU. The EU planned to push Yanukovych out of power and string Ukraine along with a carrot and stick approach for a decade-plus. The US/UK goal was always to drag Russia into Ukraine and use them as the boogie monster to put the EU in line. The first goal was to weaken Russia. The second goal was to kill the European middle class and usher in a communist regime via the Great Reset. Then no more France, UK, Germany etc, Europe would be just one country run by a communist-style oligarchy. Guess when this second plan was initiated... 2015.

Rebuilding the Asylum System | by George Soros - Project Syndicate

George Soros lays out a comprehensive plan to manage the surge in refugee flows worldwide.

www.project-syndicate.org

Funny how everything's started to fit.

You have no evidence to support any of that. The accession of Ukraine could have been the same as for Poland and the A8+2. As for the 'communist regime' shit, you need to lay of the drugs, you don't handle them well. That shit's literally straight from conspiracy sites on YouTube.

As for asylum, it should be a worldwide thing, not just a West thing, that's the problem. There should be places of asylum on all continents and all continents should bare responsibility for their own asylum seekers.

 

[Saaho]

Why?
I mean it will be such a stupid & Idiotic move.
The Islamists- Radicals in Bangladesh aren't great in number.
The radicals will have effect of like Auto-immune Diseases on Bangladesh.
Let the Army or More secular party handle them, meanwhile We should solely focus on Economy.

Its a question of ensuring strategic victories. Fix the single biggest geostrategic vulnerability that India has while there is an opportunity. Simple.

 

[randomradio]

Sure, but it will take time. A wealthier middle income India might also have different priorities at that time. Why needlessly wage war and take in millions of poor people when things are going well, right?

The minute we get a majority middle class, our economy will be so big that all these small states will simply fall into our sphere of influence.

I think if there is a literal genocide, yknow people getting lined up, killed and whatnot, and there's a lot of social media and eyes on it - there will be much more willingness on thr international community to let India go in.

Sanctions don't necessarily have to be all-out, just enough to do slow damage over time, like we have done to China post Galwan. This can come via technology denials first and foremost, followed by limitations to how much we can invest in specific sectors of their economies. Even if we have a majority middle class with a big economy, our per capita income won't be that impressive. Also, they may allow us to go in, in the beginning. Let's say BD falls in a matter of weeks like they did before, sanctions can always be placed after all the victims are rescued, one way or the other.

The biggest being limitations to energy exports via the oil cartel. They can artificially make energy transfers to India more expensive.

I personally think this changes as the economy worsens. My prediction is thar ordinary Bangladeshis' will increasingly identify with radical ideologies as opportunities wither. We already see thos happening. Their government will take the easy way of just blaming India. Eventually they will just start allowing arms and resources over the border to militant groups operating all over the NE. Perhaps they will actively foment them.

We can do the same to them, even more effectively than they can.

People incorrectly assume Muslims are united, but that opinion comes only when we see them on the streets committing some form of protest or violence or other when there's not much to challenge them. But their entire culture is a house of cards due to dogmatic ideological differences. For example, the Barelvis and Deobandis hate each other. There's also the Saudi-funded Salafi movement.

Similarly, in Pakistan, Punjabis are majority Barelvi while the Pashtuns are Deobandi. Once these denominations start fighting each other, there's not much that's gonna stop it.

 

[randomradio]

Pffft.

Nuclear just gets the world destroyed, Russia, China, DPRK, Iran. Conventionally the only question is whether NATO would even have to switch to a partial war economy or not.

Nah, in 5-6 years, the US will be far too busy with China to bother about Europe. And Europe's MIC is pretty much dead. Both Europe and Russia will have similar-sized military forces, and only 'cause Poland is modernizing.

He was removed by parliament, even his own party voted to eject him.

Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's where European and Indian versions of democracy differ. If we vote on major directional policies we expect them to be implemented, otherwise elections are just a meaningless popularity contest where policies and words are pointless, may as well be a smiling contest.

Then you definitely have voted for illegal immigration.

So all countries not militarily strong should be invaded then in your opinion? That's basically what you're saying. I see it differently, the countries attempting annexations should be economically and militarily crippled by the world.

They need to use realpolitik.

If things happened the way you think, the the West should have been economically and militarily crippled multiple times.

Yanukovych only changed his mind immediately after meeting Putin, he literally had a seemingly split personality disorder. His parliament accused him of treason when he announced his new direction.

Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sure, you are free to believe that.

You have no evidence to support any of that. The accession of Ukraine could have been the same as for Poland and the A8+2. As for the 'communist regime' shit, you need to lay of the drugs, you don't handle them well. That shit's literally straight from conspiracy sites on YouTube.

Let's see when post-war Ukraine will join both the EU and NATO then.

As for asylum, it should be a worldwide thing, not just a West thing, that's the problem. There should be places of asylum on all continents and all continents should bare responsibility for their own asylum seekers.

What makes you think these people are asylum-seekers?

 

[BMD]

Nah, in 5-6 years, the US will be far too busy with China to bother about Europe. And Europe's MIC is pretty much dead. Both Europe and Russia will have similar-sized military forces, and only 'cause Poland is modernizing.

China has 100nm of water to make it across, and Taiwan is well prepared for that should it happen.

Historical facts, deal with it. If you heard different, you were listening to a liar, it's a simple as that.

Then you definitely have voted for illegal immigration.

How so? True democracy is about the policies not the individual.

They need to use realpolitik.

If things happened the way you think, the the West should have been economically and militarily crippled multiple times.

When was the last time the US annexed a country?

Sure, you are free to believe that.

It's a f*cking fact. This is your problem, you don't deal in facts, you deal in reiterated lies and BS. The whole country turned against him. That's not a coup, it's just an idiot.

Let's see when post-war Ukraine will join both the EU and NATO then.

I said, "could," who knows what will happen now.

What makes you think these people are asylum-seekers?

A lot of them are not but if continents were responsible for their own asylum then there wouldn't be this opportunity for economic immigration and illegal people trafficking.

 

[randomradio]

China has 100nm of water to make it across, and Taiwan is well prepared for that should it happen.

That's 3 years away. I'm talking about PLAN in the Pacific.

How so? True democracy is about the policies not the individual.

How many people voted for unlimited illegal immigration and two tier policing?

When was the last time the US annexed a country?

US Interventions

Global Policy Forum is a policy watchdog that follows the work of the United Nations. We promote accountability and citizen participation in decisions on peace and security, social justice and international law.

archive.globalpolicy.org

It's a f*cking fact. This is your problem, you don't deal in facts, you deal in reiterated lies and BS. The whole country turned against him. That's not a coup, it's just an idiot.

Lol. No, they didn't. That's in fact what many Ukrainians are complaining about, traitors in their midst who support Putin.

I said, "could," who knows what will happen now.

They "couldn't" before. Even after the war if they do not join either the EU or NATO, then they were never meant to join in the first place.

A lot of them are not but if continents were responsible for their own asylum then there wouldn't be this opportunity for economic immigration and illegal people trafficking.

Continents are responsible for it even today. But what Europe is facing is a conspiracy, not a normal event. The goal is to generate localized conflict so the govt can use it as an excuse to bring in regressive laws.

Here's an example:

UK revisits social media regulation after far-right riots

Britain's recently-elected Labour government inherited the legislation from the Conservatives, who spent many months tweaking the bill in an attempt to balance the right to free speech with concerns over online harms. A further 70% of respondents said social media companies were not strongly...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

The act, passed in October but not set to be enforced until early next year, allows the government to fine social media companies up to 10% of global turnover if they are found in breach.

Goodbye, freedom of expression in the UK.

 

[BMD]

That's 3 years away. I'm talking about PLAN in the Pacific.

What about it?

How many people voted for unlimited illegal immigration and two tier policing?

None in the UK. Anti-illegal immigration is now a cross party issue but some fools hate the Tories so much, or rely on handouts so much, that they voted for Labour despite that. Now they finding that all the problems caused by 2008, COVID and the War are all still there, and Labour can't do jack shit about them either.

US Interventions

Global Policy Forum is a policy watchdog that follows the work of the United Nations. We promote accountability and citizen participation in decisions on peace and security, social justice and international law.

archive.globalpolicy.org

I said annexations, interventions are something quite different. The only post-Cold War annexations have been exclusively by Russia and China in the SCS (Paracel Islands).

Lol. No, they didn't. That's in fact what many Ukrainians are complaining about, traitors in their midst who support Putin.

They are nowhere near a majority, not even close. If there was strong pro-Russian support in Ukraine (above 50%), Russia would had won this war ages ago. As it is it's being funded by China and armed by Iran and the DPRK and still can't end it.

They "couldn't" before. Even after the war if they do not join either the EU or NATO, then they were never meant to join in the first place.

They have to win the war first in order to even make a choice. I believe if Ukraine had been left alone it would have joined the EU but stayed out of NATO to passify Russia, like Finland and Sweden were doing until Russia gave them little choice.

Continents are responsible for it even today. But what Europe is facing is a conspiracy, not a normal event. The goal is to generate localized conflict so the govt can use it as an excuse to bring in regressive laws.

The conflicts in the Middle East and Africa are being drawn out by Russia and China, that is the conspiracy. There's over half a dozen 'intervention' by Russia and China there - Syria, Libya, and 7 coups in Africa plus interference elsewhere.

Africa: the 7 military coups over the last three years | Africanews

Africa has experienced seven coups since August 2020, before the one underway on Wednesday in Gabon.

www.africanews.com

Wagner Group activities in Africa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• 1 Sudan.
• 2 Central African Republic. 2.1 Deaths of journalists.
• 3 Madagascar.
• 4 Libya.
• 5 Mozambique.
• 6 Mali.
• 7 Burkina Faso.
• 8 Chad.

At the moment there is zero attempt by Africans to find refuge in Africa.

Here's an example:

UK revisits social media regulation after far-right riots

Britain's recently-elected Labour government inherited the legislation from the Conservatives, who spent many months tweaking the bill in an attempt to balance the right to free speech with concerns over online harms. A further 70% of respondents said social media companies were not strongly...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

The act, passed in October but not set to be enforced until early next year, allows the government to fine social media companies up to 10% of global turnover if they are found in breach.

Goodbye, freedom of expression in the UK.

Freedom of expression doesn't include racial and religious hatred or the organisation of riots or terrorism. Otherwise, as an example, some Muslims could go on social media and say, "I think we should all burn some Indian shops, because Modi did x, y, z in Kashmir." It's obvious where that would end if it were allowed.

 

[Ginvincible]

The minute we get a majority middle class, our economy will be so big that all these small states will simply fall into our sphere of influence.

I think this is only true if the nations around want productive relationships. If they are ideological, like Pakistan, then no amount of economic benefit matters. Look at all the failed gas pipeline deals which Pakistan would have objectively benefitted from (disproportionately even) yet rejected due to their ideological enemity with India.

A more radicalized Bangladeshi population, one where the economic growth has slowed to a crawl, has a high likelihood of being the same.

I guess we can also look to all the small states around China. While some got sucked into orbit, others still resist. Even here in the US we have smaller states resisting and opposing us despite being the preeminent economic power.

Sanctions don't necessarily have to be all-out, just enough to do slow damage over time, like we have done to China post Galwan. This can come via technology denials first and foremost, followed by limitations to how much we can invest in specific sectors of their economies. Even if we have a majority middle class with a big economy, our per capita income won't be that impressive. Also, they may allow us to go in, in the beginning. Let's say BD falls in a matter of weeks like they did before, sanctions can always be placed after all the victims are rescued, one way or the other.


The biggest being limitations to energy exports via the oil cartel. They can artificially make energy transfers to India more eexpensive.

I agree. Then again, it comes back to my point. If that wealthier India is able to stop a genocide or whatever other objective there is, why stick around? I think after this next round of radicalization there will be no easy way to integrate the people. You can't get rid of them and I don't think it's worth angering the international community over a few slivers of (admittedly highly strategic) land. Bangladesh will probably never be in a position to seriously militarily challenge India.

We can do the same to them, even more effectively than they can.

People incorrectly assume Muslims are united, but that opinion comes only when we see them on the streets committing some form of protest or violence or other when there's not much to challenge them. But their entire culture is a house of cards due to dogmatic ideological differences. For example, the Barelvis and Deobandis hate each other. There's also the Saudi-funded Salafi movement.

Similarly, in Pakistan, Punjabis are majority Barelvi while the Pashtuns are Deobandi. Once these denominations start fighting each other, there's not much that's gonna stop it.

Yea, India can play that game. But the fact that is has to against failed states will always be a drain. India will never get good dividends. Go too far and if these states actually fracture it'll be an even bigger headache. Having at least semi-amicable relationships should be the goal.

 

[randomradio]

I think this is only true if the nations around want productive relationships. If they are ideological, like Pakistan, then no amount of economic benefit matters. Look at all the failed gas pipeline deals which Pakistan would have objectively benefitted from (disproportionately even) yet rejected due to their ideological enemity with India.

A more radicalized Bangladeshi population, one where the economic growth has slowed to a crawl, has a high likelihood of being the same.

I guess we can also look to all the small states around China. While some got sucked into orbit, others still resist. Even here in the US we have smaller states resisting and opposing us despite being the preeminent economic power.

They don't have the money necessary to make things work. The more Islamic they become, the poorer they become, the more dependent they become. Then they get used by anybody and everybody. And while the population may be radical, they will still be under someone's thumb, and all we have to do is control the owner of that thumb. This is the reason the US likes to work with authoritarians.

I agree. Then again, it comes back to my point. If that wealthier India is able to stop a genocide or whatever other objective there is, why stick around? I think after this next round of radicalization there will be no easy way to integrate the people. You can't get rid of them and I don't think it's worth angering the international community over a few slivers of (admittedly highly strategic) land. Bangladesh will probably never be in a position to seriously militarily challenge India.

Radicalization is not a permanent status. It can be reversed, like it's happening in Iran. About 60-70% of Iran is now non-Muslim. As per the Iranian leadership itself, 50000 out of 75000 mosques have been closed due to lack of attendance.

Searching for freedom and prosperity is a basic human instinct. It is much stronger than ideology.

Yea, India can play that game. But the fact that is has to against failed states will always be a drain. India will never get good dividends. Go too far and if these states actually fracture it'll be an even bigger headache. Having at least semi-amicable relationships should be the goal.

As long as the border is sealed and manned, everything else is manageable. But yeah, I get your point, we need as little unrest as possible.

Then again, we have to manage our own expectations. When Muslims start fighting each other, it can get really ugly.

 

[jetray]

nothing to see here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1838609863863382287

 

[Rajput Lion]

nothing to see here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1838609863863382287

New Yankee Vassal

 

[BMD]

'Cause it's usually normal practice to punch foreign diplomats.

 

[_Anonymous_]

'Cause it's usually normal practice to punch foreign diplomats.

I've yet to recall the old hag or her son hug any foreign or domestic dignitaries , Paddy. I'd extend the same views to your PMs as well. How many did Truss the a̶l̶l̶i̶g̶a̶t̶o̶r̶ sorry the English rose hug or BJ before her & Sunak after her did ? Hell we didn't even see Tony hug Bertie or Gerry Adams hug Ian Paisley after the good friday agreement did we ?

Hard to admit you've egg all over your face isn't it especially after all that flag waving you did for your American masters fervently denying any hanky panky by them , much more vociferously than the Americans themselves eh Paddy ?