Saudi-Arabia is a part of the Western US-EU axis too
So is Thailand
So are a bunch of African states that are effectively ran as dictatorships

The question was never whether they were "working democracies" or not

Democracies don't tend to war with each other. It's extremely rare

No I believe he's insinuating the lack of women and children may lead to either demographic decline, or reactionary tendencies as men are by and large more Conservative and prone to anti social tendencies

You guys say this and then fall back to "XYZ WAS NOT A REAL DEMOCRACY" true scotsman fallacies whenever these truisms are pointed out as wrong

Why are people in here still crying about azow lmao

Name me a war between 2 functional, fully suffraged democracies where neither had become authoritarian and lost democratic credentials

That seems to be a pattern anyway tbh. If you really look at the stats the amount of conflict/war decreasing over time

There we go

Once again you point out so many prerequisites that your original statement becomes useless

Your rhetorical trick only works by excluding 90% of the world from the definition of what a functioning "democracy" is

That's cause most of the world is authoritarian and middle income

But you've still not addressed the point

Even flawed democracies don't tend to war that much

beg for forgiveness NOW!

As always with you liberals, you regard politics in an Platonic idea-heaven where countries are either "authoritarian, oriental, despotic" or "libertarian, free, Western".

You completely disregard why a country with the pressure it has from outside and inside forces might want to have one form of policy that you describe as "authoritarian".

You disregard why a country surrounded by wealthy, allied neighbors with the same economic system, same religion and same language family has no reason to enact such "authoritarian" policies.

Whatever "authoritarian" policies they do have are explained away by rhetorical sleight of hand tricks - they are not wars, just interventions to counter (insert foreign threat to freedom and democracy).

Your a***ysis has zero basis to material reality, it is just stuck in textbook truisms like "democracies don't have wars against each other", "countries with McDonalds don't have wars against each other" and other liberal memes.

It's easy to say "democracies don't do XYZ" when this is your entire definition of democracy, and you bend and break the definition ex-post to fit countries into this mold and exclude others:

If there is one, he’s growing up in a disputed and conflicted region.

My biggest bets are on Palestine or Kashmir. Eren Yeager confirmed Muslim

C-C-C-AN YOU FEEL. MY HEEEAAAARTTT.

WWHPD

WHAT WOULD HARRY POTTER DO

You're talking bout the perspective of the Western elite now?

For the rest of the people that seems to be a real deal breaker tho. I highly doubt they would oppose another superpower if it was a democracy. As you know yourself, they also don't f*** w the political systems of the countries you just named

I mean i don't even remotely like their current government but you gotta put india in there even if modi can eat a d***

lmao

South Asia is its own beast. And it’s been relatively mature and self-contained, unlike the west & it’s egregious foreign policies.

I’ll always maintain, albeit their issues with one another, South Asia has the most level-headed & cool-as-ice countries. They always think twice & thrice.

No nukes have flown there, only Western leaders have ever used nukes in war &/or threatened to use them.

South Asia just waits for the T20 Cricket cup to flex hard.

So someone who actually uses all nukes?

facts

Imperial interests don't care about democracy my boy, Saudi Arabia thriving

The idea that Western governments foreign policy has ANYTHING to do with democracy is my favorite fairy tale

I mean the common folk ofc. You know Saudi Arabia aint loved over here for the same reason lmao

It’s all predatory capitalism, opportunistic destabilization & flat out marginalization that might or might not be based on racism.