It's difficult to build lasting peace when the aggressor does not want it. Sure the Russians are open to peace in their terms, but imo that is just escalate things again in few years to come.
Don't get me wrong, EU is in big part a peace project. That however shouldn't happen at just any cost. Free, independent and territorially whole Ukraine is important for the future peace, Ukraine, Europe and even good for Russia.
Yeah, I vaguely remember the guy. Terrific look and great villain material 🙂
Sounds fun. I need to check that at some point. Thanks!
With everything being long arcs nowadays, I really enjoy the old school episodic format. So that definitely isn't a negative 😁
Started watching Farscape. I've only seen season 1 when it aired in Finland the first time. It's stuck with me ever since and while it certainly has a lot of problems, it holds up quite well as a camp scifi action show.
there is a completely different islam being followed in americia.
Yes, in fact there are many different types of Islam followed in different countries. America is not unique in that way. Even within many Muslim countries there are different sects of worshippers. Not everyone follows the mainstream interpretation.
you guys think of islam as a completely peaceful religion.
I certainly don't think that, nor does anyone with any common sense. As well as no one should consider Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or even Buddishm as completely peaceful. Every religion has built within it a framework that can be used to promote and justify violence.
I don't understand how rest of your post relates to what was said before, but I than you for the info you provided.
Here's a more detailed info about polygamy in different countries: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/07/polygamy-is-rare-around-the-world-and-mostly-confined-to-a-few-regions/
I think there is a widely shared misconcpetion in the West that the models and values of a society and governance are universal. This is a very colonial mindset, even when the intent is benevolent.
Note that I am not an expert on Afghan society so if someone knows better, please correct me.
My perspective is, and like others here have pointed out, that Afghanistan has never been a state in the sense we understand states being. Concepts such as central government, civil society, national army were brought in by the English in the 19th century. Small parts of the society were organized based on western ideals (in supervision of the Brits) but most of the country remained decentralized, traditionalist and tribal. This is not to say that this is somehow worse, it is an ancient way of life with very rich traditions and it is something that has kept people in there are alive for centuries. For big part of the country things like nationalism, democracy, institutions, politics etc. are just indifferent.
With background like this it's no wonder Afghans were not able to build a society that mimicis western ideals. 20 years (or even 50) is a relatively short time when compared to traditions and interpretations of religion that have existed for hundreds of years. Sure, some people benefitted from the British, Soviet and the US presence, but i'd guess those that genuinely wanted to turn Afghanistan into a modern state, were in a great minority. In a society based on family and tribal ties, things like politics or civil society don't mean much if anything. Ethics are very different from the European traditions too.
Unfortunately Taleban is the only group there with power and organization that can form anything resembling a centralized nation state. The problem is that they are fundamentalist lunatics. While there are people who oppose them, it is very difficult to get enough people organized and overcome the fear of brutal punishments by the regime.
Because the civil society is small and disorganized, most of the people are apolitical and couldn't care less how the society is organized. I'd wager that most men in any position care about making a living and being left alone. Those who don't, try to leave the country. There just isn't a structure that allows for a major rebellion.
Sorry, I'm bad at math (even though it was a rhetorical question) 😃
I'd like to point out however, that while having 4 wives might be allowed in some branches of Islam, there are others where this is not the case. So while Taliban might allow it (and I don't know whether they do as I am not an expert, but I'm currently too lazy to check it out), not everyone in the Muslim world does.
I say this because us living in the west have a very limited view of Islam and generally it is bad to enforce stereotypes. So this was not aimed against you, just pointing out something that bothers me in general 🙂
Uh, they've been in war like state most of the time since 1970s. Wars caused by outsiders. I'm pretty sure that at this point, most people just want to live in peace, no matter how shitty that peace is.
This is in part where the Taliban's strength stems from: at least they are domestic oppressors, not troops from abroad.
Depends who you are, I guess. For women, leaving alone is very difficult if not impossible as you would need a male guardian to escort you.
As a man it it's easier but comes down to the money. Most people there are very poor and in a country where family an tribal ties are really important, it is very difficult to pack up your things and leave.
Also, poor Afgan refugees are not received very well by other countries. They are also afraid of the lunacy of the fundamentalist religious movement spreading.
Like any country Afganistan has wealthy people too and for them leaving is probably the easiest.
On general note, Afganistan is a prime example of what a fundamentalist leadership and religion can lead to. Can happen in other countries and outside of Islam too. We should be aware of this.
That's a helluva expensive shot. I mean, you should definitely get it, but nobody should have to pay that much for it. I guess that's USA...
Well, this is one possible outcome, although not necessary. For example Finland was able to patch it's relations with Russia after 2 brutal wars with tens of thousands of casualties and a huge chunk of lost land. Of course the friendly relations were somewhat forced and a survival mechanism for a small country in Cold War era (Russia had a hold on Finland while Finland navigated in it's position to gain as much political freedoms it could) but it genuinely got rid of open hostilities between the countries.
Even after the cold war ended and up to today, majority of the population in Finland has not had a revanchist opinion towards Russians, albeit they were not fully trusted either. Finns learned to live as neighbors and in peace while preparing just in case.
So while it is probably likely that loosing land would cause a negative nationalistic turn in Ukraine and grievances towards Russia, it's not set in stone. Actually I am way more concerned that if Russia can claim a victory, they expand their delirious imperial/quasifascist project and escalate the conflict with the west further.