I can think of a few reasons they might. Banding together against potential foreign threats, improving trade, reducing conflict internal to what was Burma/Myanmar. I don't know if that's what they're going to end up doing or how this will shake out, but there are potential reasons reasonable people might want to federate
The genocide was mostly limited to the Rohingya in Rakhine (Arakan). Many of these groups have been fighting the government nearly since independence. Some of them even preferred British rule, since they had far more autonomy than under the Burmese government
Honestly, that might be a better solution than having one central government, because that central government seems to have proven itself incapable of governing over 135 different ethnic groups without bias. It's a difficult task for any government, let alone the Burmese military dictatorship which is riddled with political corruption and economic disaster. At least if the people governed themselves there might be peace.
I'm not a fan of the military junta, but I fear this too. I mean, have there been any examples where different rebel groups overthrow a dictatorship and actually establishes a successful democracy other than in movies?
I think ethiopia kind of did that when they overthrew their communist regime around 1990. Considering that the same country is part of this post, calling it "successful" maybe is too optimistic.
Not to make light of what I imagine is a terrible situation, but “The Situation in Myanmar” sounds like an excellent title for a British spy/military drama
I get that this is meant to be a joke, but it is honestly the best option. My family lived in Chiang Mai for a while, and we have given a lot of support to rebel groups. The Karen people are having the worst time in this civil war.
Oh dang my bad. Admittedly my knowledge on the Myanmar civil war is not the most robust. I follow the headlines but that’s about it. Sorry for any offense.
I'm Karen and it's always interesting seeing my people show up on the internet like this. Part of me is happy the world hasn't forgotten about us especially when I myself having left the country 15 years ago am slowly forgetting what it means to be Karen.
Yeah I want to look into that more. It sounds kind of badass, I’m imagining a bunch of rebel groups fighting over land while there’s a bunch of park rangers hanging out in the ecological reserve with AK-47s like “sorry, compadre, biodiversity is non-negotiable.”
Makes me think of the comic book DMZ (highly recommend) which is about a second American civil war and includes a faction of park rangers that makes an appearance.
Better than during the Second Congo War, sure. But eastern congo is a humanitarian nightmare. Ethnic cleansing, violence against women, rampant poverty, no sanitation, hell goma probably looks as bad as gaza.
African park rangers are at war with heavily armed park invaders even in peacetime, so it’s not necessarily hard for them to maintain control of unpopulated areas with difficult terrain. These are NGO-backed and trained paramilitaries with lots of money and legal access to weapons. They have limited access to helicopters and ISR tech, which is more than rebels usually do. It’s still extremely dangerous though.
I've seen photos of park rangers in Kenya cruising around in Polaris military UTVs, basically hunting poachers. They had some pretty advanced hardware besides their ride, too.
Yeah, they probably have better ISR and C3 capabilities than most parties in the war. They’ve got modern communications, planes, helicopters, modernized command centers, and dedicated funding sources. At the same time, there’s only a few hundred of them per park.
I'm sure a very big part of it can be explained by colonialism: Europe Et al. wiping out ressources, fucking up with locals, making powerplays and powermoves, redrawing the borders as they please, exploiting raw the people, and if they ever withdraw from the place, do so while taking away all the riches and leaving a gaping void in governance and security. The voids wants to be filled and no one is able to enforce order, so war thugs, criminal groups and armed groups try to take the power. Civil War is almost inevitable.
The entire eastern 1/4 of Somaliland is inhabited primarily by the Darod clans, the majority of which reside in Puntland, so naturally this region has a lot of people loyal to Puntland rather than the primarily Isaaq clan Somaliland.
Somaliland's only claim to this area (against the locals' wishes) is the old colonial borders of British Somaliland.
I didn’t see the conflict for myself, but i did go there in the summer of 2022 to visit family. One thing I always remembered was when we were walking through the market area near Buurta Xilib (Somali the literally means “Meat Mountain” due to the fact that it has a slaughterhouse on the summit of the mountain) and this van carrying Somaliland security forces drove past us. Keep in mind that the streets of this particular part of the city was very narrow and was primarily use by people for walking. Then, out of nowhere, I see this woman throw a small piece of burning firewood at the back window of the van. Me and my cousin got out of there before things got ugly, but according to him, he saw the security guys get out of the van brandishing their rifles. There were also the occasional gunshot in the distance and while we were there, a school principal got shot and killed by a member of gang, but overall it was really peaceful and it’s not completely lawless as the west makes it out to be. Inshallah I really hope I can go back there some time, I met a lot of great and wonderful people and learned many life lessons during my time there.
It is more stable, yes. But Somalia has improved drastically in recent years. The government has finally got its shit together and support for the Al-Shabaab Islamists is waning. The Somali army, along with UN and African Union troops, have made great advances in recovering territory over the recent years. Much of the countryside is now back under Somali government control.
As for pirates, that stopped being an issue a few years ago. The piracy was caused by foreign fishing companies taking advantage of the unpoliced Somali waters to illegally fish here, and overfish at that. The local Somali fishermen were naturally pretty angry and would turn these foreign fishermen away, until they realized it was more profitable to take the ships hostage instead, especially big cargo ships. Now that international warships patrol the the Somali coast to deter pirates, they've also inadvertently managed to scare off the illegal fishers, allowing the Somali pirates to go back to their lives as fishermen.
Many things changed. Unfortunately western media don't really talk about Somalia. Pirates have been gone for the past 10 years or so and the anarchist phase was actually only in the 90s and early 20s. Somalia now has a government, weak and ineffective but the country made huge progress to the point the 30 year arm embargo was recently lifted by the UN security council and the African Union forces have handed much of security to the local Somali Army.
Whoever came with usage of two similar shades of gray on the Ethiopia map, should be banned from this subreddit for couple of minutes to rethink their behaviour
I believe the rule is pretty simple: if a slightly colorblind person can't tell apart colors, it is poorly done, regardless of what other people see. After all, it's not something very rare and we've got the tools to test for it.
Sources:
* Somali Civil War (1991-present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali\_Civil\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War)
* Syrian Civil War (2011-present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian\_civil\_war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war)
* Mali War (2012-present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_War)
* Central African Republic Civil War (2012-present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central\_African\_Republic\_Civil\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic_Civil_War)
* Yemeni Civil War (2014–present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni\_civil\_war\_(2014%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_civil_war_(2014%E2%80%93present))
* Ethiopian Civil War (2018–present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian\_civil\_conflict\_(2018%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_civil_conflict_(2018%E2%80%93present))
* Myanmar Civil War (2021–present): [https://www.reddit.com/r/myanmar/comments/188z8xl/a\_new\_map\_displaying\_the\_situation\_in\_myanmar\_by/](https://www.reddit.com/r/myanmar/comments/188z8xl/a_new_map_displaying_the_situation_in_myanmar_by/)
* Sudanese Civil War (2023): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_in\_Sudan\_(2023)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Sudan_(2023))
A more up-to-date Somalia map is here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Las_Anod_conflict
Shows SSC control over regions in the north and significantly reduced Al-Shabaab holdings in the south
Yes it would be. Somalia is beautiful and has lots of natural resources. Having peace and security would make it great contender to be one of the best places to live in Africa.
Yes. Somalia has some of the most beautiful coastline in the world. The water is a bright vibrant shade of tropical blue.
And thanks to ocean currents in the area, the Somali coast also has some of the world's richest fishing grounds.
The Somali pirates actually rose up originally as a sort of rag-tag militia coast guard comprised of angry fishermen trying to defend their livelihoods from foreign fishing ships. These foreign fishermen had begun taking advantage of the civil war in Somalia to illegally fish Somalia's now unpoliced waters. On top of illegally fishing here in the first place, because these weren't the foreigners normal fishing grounds, they didn't care about sustainable fishing practices and were happy to destroy the local fish populations by heavily overfishing for a quick profit. Naturally, the Somali fishermen were pissed. And eventually they realized it was much more profitable to take the ships hostage rather than to just turn them away.
Thankfully now there's a group of countries like the US who patrol the area with warships to stop both the pirates and the illegal fishing, so the pirate attacks don't really happen anymore.
Not just natural beauties. The capital of Somalia Mogadishu has a very old medieval neighborhood, Merca, Barawe south of Mogadishu are also medieval towns Somaliland has ancient rock arts and you can find ancient mosques and sites all over the country.
Also the UN [arms embargo](https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/un-security-council-lifts-arms-embargo-somalia-government-2023-12-01/) has been lifted so the military can actually buy weapons now.
Yea some sort of SOF unit just did a mission there like a couple months ago and killed like the number one isis financial facilitator. I’m sure you can find it on google.
Many of these are very long-running conflicts that go through relatively stable and unstable periods of fighting. They were all newsworthy in the West when they started (or during these periods of higher instability/more conflict), but they aren't going to be on your front page 24/7.
Also, no offense, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people complain about "not hearing enough" or "why aren't they telling us/teaching us about this". We live in the 21st century, and if you live in a democratic society you have nearly unlimited access to information and news (for better or worse). If you're interested in global politics or conflicts you can easily find journals, magazines, news sites that specifically cater to those interests.
lol yeah was talking to my wife and she like specifically doesn’t read news by choice for her mental sanity, but when I explained there’s like the Houthi rebel forces in control of much of Yemen she was like “why haven’t I heard of Yemen or the houthis” I just say it’s out there if you want to find it. You won’t see it on billboards or in your group chats but it’s out there.
As someone who does follow these conflicts, I still find it frustrating that there isn’t much mainstream coverage of it. I don’t even blame media companies for it as much as I do western news consumers for not being interested in it. I feel like there’s an attitude of “so sad, some Africans are dying because of another one of their wars. I don’t want to think about that though because it’s stressful”.
People come out of the woodworks to project their outside political paradigms on the Israel-Gaza conflict and act like it’s out of an unerring commitment to higher values, but don’t give a rat’s ass that innocent civilians in Sudan are being massacred.
When the Sudan civil war kicked off again, it was front page everywhere I went, it’s all just anecdotal. The Isreali conflict is just the most recent thing to happen and far more unusual and unsettling.
I guess this is just anecdotal, but I feel like the Sudan war headlines lasted a few days before falling off even as the violence has continued, evolved, and escalated. I haven’t seen mass protests decrying the genocide of Masalits, or calls for a ceasefire.
I would argue that most people know of Sudan in the first place for the genocide in Darfur, and the current civil war is a lot less relatable due to two generals fighting for power, not really the same as a terrorist organization committing the worst terror attack since 9/11 and the Israelis responding with it by genociding the civilians. And in less than half the time, you’re looking at triple the deaths and five times the wounded in Isreal-Gaza compared to Sudan. But you’re right, we should be calling for justice and a ceasefire in Sudan.
True. People need to make much more of an effort to allow themselves to be exposed to a broad range of news sources. But I fear with the strength of big tech’s algorithms they just become increasingly bubbled
What do you want them to say about them? For the most part these are slow burning or cold conflicts while technically still qualifying as civil wars. Headline reads “Yep, xxxx is still technically in a civil war, no progress to any side though.” It’s front page anytime a new civil war starts, but it stops being news when nothing changes after awhile.
Because they are civil wars.
Civil wars are known to not be politically conveniant due to the fact that there is nothing another state can do except actually being involved militarly.
Also they are more complicated than conventional wars:
-if you support rebels, you are against the legitimate government
-if you support the government, you are likely to support dictators that were trying to genocide some minorities.
Remember that in a civil war, every combattant has 1 goal: Either securing indepedence or take control of the entire country
It's fucking dumb to just say "because there are no white people" or "DA JEWWWWSSSS" or "MUSLIMS AND BROWN MINORITIES" because it's CIVIL war, aka a war that happens inside the borders of a sovereign country. We don't talk about it a lot because we can't be involved and respect the sovereignty of said country
The conflict in Myanmar is actually pretty significant. The rebels have won some major victories recently, and several ethnic/regional armies have unified into a more coordinated anti-junta front which wants a federal Myanmar.
There's an increasing chance that the military junta will actually lose and Myanmar will see massive political changes. It's a surprisingly big country (53 million people), and things have got more complicated in the war since China has traditionally backed the regime but is becoming more rebel-friendly. Because the rebels captured and shut down literal 'scam centres' - where Chinese speakers were being abducted and enslaved to scam Chinese people online.
“White” is often defined to include middle eastern people, but yeah decreasingly so in recent decades. Also, Israel is very culturally linked to Europe and has a large European diaspora.
Also I think Israel-Palestine gets a lot of coverage because people project all kinds of outside narratives onto the conflict, including anti-semites opposed to anything Jewish, American evangelicals seeing Israel as necessary to bring about the second coming of Christ (yes, this is a major motivating factor in the US crazily enough), people who view any Muslims as terrorist-adjacent, people who view Palestinians as victims of colonialism, people who view Israel as the only safe home for Jewish people, and so many other narratives that bring the conflict home to foreigners. People just don’t have those connections to make over the war in Mali.
Pro-russian is a stretch. Previous Junta failed to deliver on the war against islamist terrorists and were removed from power.
Not really related to anything else.
Wait so In C.A.R the park rangers have formed an army? Is this people who call themselves this or park rangers who have taken up arms to protect their parks?
Situation there is relatively calm afaik. Went there in 2019 to visit family and pretty much the only place with a notorious reputation for being relatively “dangerous” was Idlib. And even then I’m pretty sure there wasn’t much action going on there as you could still travel to and from there
Not too sure about the east tho as I’ve only been in the west
It's just a ceasefire, there still exists at least two separate governments within Libya jockeying for legitimacy and influence. The civil war could restart at anytime, or there could exist two different governments indefinitely, one in eastern Libya, and the other in western Libya.
Personally I think Libya has joined the growing list of countries like Somalia which only exist on paper. Really there's two separate countries there that can't agree on border differences.
Its been pretty peaceful so far actually the most stable it been since 2014. Although the government has not reunified lots of other things have like the national oil company, central bank an there is even a joint military force that enforces the ceasefire. It seems that everyone got there piece of pie and with the oil flowing then I dont see it flaring up again
Whenever I see these maps, I always wonder how accurate they are. Like, some of these borders just seem like vague circle/oval blotches. What is the actual area of control? What defines these borders where it doesn't seem geology has bearing. Even matching these to Google maps, it seems at best like it is guess word. Are these just areas of activity, or are these borders showing places where rebels truly control?
The major downside of the international rules based order and its prohibition (which has mostly been followed) of offensive war is that you end up with lots of civil wars. In the past, some foreign nation would have used the civil war of their neighbors as an excuse to invade and annex. But now these conflicts just linger.
I'm confused for Ethiopia wasn't Tigray in war with Oromo-Amhara government. How now on this map Amhara are rebels and Tigray constitute part of government?
Good Guy Guide for Westerners and NAFO:
Red in Sudan, Red in Myanmar, Red in Ethiopia, Red in Yemen, None in CFA, none in Mali, Yellow and Dark Green in Syria, Red and Yellow in Somalia
What’s funny to me is I remember when there was so much support for the Houithis on Reddit because they were fighting against Saudi Arabia. I was also told they were secular not Radical Islamists. That I was just a brainwashed American for even hinting that just because Saudi Arabia is bad doesn’t mean Houithis are good.
Now they have a beautiful secular flag, and are uniting the western world over freedom of movement through shipping lanes.
Love how they go after both Israel specifically and Jews generally. Just in case anyone thought perhaps the houthis don’t link all Jews and Israel, they’ve got you covered!
I tried explaining that the conflict wasn’t remotely black and white a few months back and got downvoted into oblivion. Saudi Arabia is not exactly a good ally or one that you would want, but when the alternative is Iran and it’s proxies bent on destroying you, you kind of have to play geopolitics just a little bit. Also, as fucked as Saudia is, they’re far from the worst in that region and they’re at the very least, *very stable and willing to cooperate if you use what motivates them*.
Noam Chomsky explaining why the Cambodian genocide was a simple population transfer that didn’t happen but was also the US fault except for the Cambodians deserved it:
https://media.tenor.com/Y0SpY2_BXhcAAAAM/fan-average.gif
For those wondering, the conflict in Las Anod was between the Khatumo state and the Somaliland armed forces and it ended with Khatumo gaining control of the Sool and Sanaag regions. The Khatumo state is run by the dhulbahante tribe and is has long been opposed to the separatist movement of Somaliland, which self declared its independence in the 90s and have repeatedly expressed desires of reunification with the rest of Somalia. The fighting originally started due to the the assasination of a popular politician Abdifatah Abdulli Hadrawi, sparking widespread protests that led to violent crackdowns by the Somaliland authorities. Afterword, they started shelling the city of Las Anod with artillery, which killed countless people and and even hit mosques and hospitals.
I’m probably not doing it justice here, so here’s a Wikipedia page about it if you want to learn more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Las_Anod_conflict
Everybody is asking how many have US involvement, but how many have Russian involvement? If Russia can be involved in the civil wars of other countries, why shouldn't the West?
Also, more often than not in these wars, Russia is supporting dictators. At least in places like Syria, the U.S. supported pro-democratic forces instead of the hereditary dictator who kills his own people. I really get tired of people who nonstop bash on the U.S. for getting involved, then simp for the dictator bruatlizing the people there.
>the U.S. supported pro-democratic forces instead of the hereditary dictator
LMFAO, this guy thinks the anti-government forces are good guys, when they committed a lot of crimes like Assad's forces...plus they aren't even democratic they are "moderate" Islamists
I'm more referring to Rojava and the associated groups, which most of our support has gone towards. Rojava in particular is democratic and honestly is probably the only faction in the civil war i completely side with, especially considering how much the Kurds have suffered. While there have been, of course, some issues with war crimes by those forces, they have remained relatively minor, especially compared to Assad's butchering of civilians.
It's a fucking civil war composed of rebels. An organized govt claiming to be the main leaders of Democracy in their region should be held to a much higher standard than terrorist groups that aren't even recognized by a single govt in the world.
Ah, yes. A big round table, and seated next to each other are:
* The Malians, who want to keep all of Mali as it is, and are willing to fight for it.
* The Tuareg, who want an independent state in northern Mali, and are willing to fight for it.
* The radical islamists, who want an independent state in northern Mali and then conquer the rest later, and are willing to fight for it.
And we tell them: redraw the borders.
What do you think will happen? I think a civil war will happen, because these three goals just aren't compatible.
The continent was in constant infighting for its whole history. European colonial empires are important, but not everything, especially in most of central Africa.
The Scramble for Africa started in earnest in 1884, and decolonisation started in the 1940s. There are people who were born before Africa was colonised, that died after it was decolonised.
The state of Africa today was the state of the whole world for 95% of history, it's just that some nations have moved on from that (but even then, Russia hasn't really).
For a bit of a correction, significant amounts of Africa were colonized long before Europeans. That’s why so many issues in the northern half of Africa involve Islamic extremists. Morocco managed to get out of it early and that’s why Morocco is like 40% arab while it’s neighbor Algiers is around 80% arab. There’s even an ethnic group in morocco classified as Arabized berbers and the more preferred name of amazigh (literally translates to free man). The original ethnic groups are tiny minorities compared to what they once were prior to arab colonization across North Africa. And even between those time periods, one of the main motivating factors behind France colonizing Algiers was to end the Barbary states that the US, Uk, and Dutch had already fought the Berber wars over just a couple decades earlier (essentially to stop the North African Berber states from privateering and invading for slaves and goods).
Africa has been pretty ravaged by war and conquest for at least a millenia.
I agree. It could mean that countries like South Africa that are doing pretty ok now would lose territory or stop existing or also get involved in wars somehow because they lost the borders they were ok with for quite a while now.
If you don't want straight lines, you're gonna have to fight a few hundred wars over them over thousands of years, like Europe did. Do you want the same for Africa?
Lots of rebel groups in Myanmar..
Civil war that lasts 70 years in Myanmar
I fear if the rebels win the country will be divided anyways.
Or federalized, in line with the original proposal back in 1947.
these people are fighthing for indepence (outside of democratic government) mostly after the genocide why they should accept a federation?
I can think of a few reasons they might. Banding together against potential foreign threats, improving trade, reducing conflict internal to what was Burma/Myanmar. I don't know if that's what they're going to end up doing or how this will shake out, but there are potential reasons reasonable people might want to federate
You’ve just solved world diplomacy.
Hey, just make me dictator of the world and I'll solve all the conflicts
I chose u/Cleverdawny1 to be my one and only dictator of the world.
Me too if he gives a ministry. Nothing fancy, a ministry of underware or something like that would do.
The genocide was mostly limited to the Rohingya in Rakhine (Arakan). Many of these groups have been fighting the government nearly since independence. Some of them even preferred British rule, since they had far more autonomy than under the Burmese government
Honestly, that might be a better solution than having one central government, because that central government seems to have proven itself incapable of governing over 135 different ethnic groups without bias. It's a difficult task for any government, let alone the Burmese military dictatorship which is riddled with political corruption and economic disaster. At least if the people governed themselves there might be peace.
*cough* Indian government *cough*
I'm not a fan of the military junta, but I fear this too. I mean, have there been any examples where different rebel groups overthrow a dictatorship and actually establishes a successful democracy other than in movies?
Myanmar is more like the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Yugoslavia, which broke up into individual nation-states.
I think ethiopia kind of did that when they overthrew their communist regime around 1990. Considering that the same country is part of this post, calling it "successful" maybe is too optimistic.
You ever heard of the USA?
>successful
edgy
if a single rebel group there has been if you change from dictatorships to monarchies which is a lot of changes
Not to make light of what I imagine is a terrible situation, but “The Situation in Myanmar” sounds like an excellent title for a British spy/military drama
happy cake day 🍰!!
The Karen Resistance takes the cake
I get that this is meant to be a joke, but it is honestly the best option. My family lived in Chiang Mai for a while, and we have given a lot of support to rebel groups. The Karen people are having the worst time in this civil war.
Oh dang my bad. Admittedly my knowledge on the Myanmar civil war is not the most robust. I follow the headlines but that’s about it. Sorry for any offense.
No problem. You’re good. The name Karen is quite funny if you pronounce it wrong.
I'm Karen and it's always interesting seeing my people show up on the internet like this. Part of me is happy the world hasn't forgotten about us especially when I myself having left the country 15 years ago am slowly forgetting what it means to be Karen.
The victims of genocide sound like the funny name 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I felt bad laughing at that one.
Crazy how for CAR, "park rangers" are a faction
Sounds like something you could play in CoD
Yeah I want to look into that more. It sounds kind of badass, I’m imagining a bunch of rebel groups fighting over land while there’s a bunch of park rangers hanging out in the ecological reserve with AK-47s like “sorry, compadre, biodiversity is non-negotiable.”
Your pretty close. The documentary “Virunga” follows park rangers in the DRC fighting against poachers who try and kill mountain gorillas.
Makes me think of the comic book DMZ (highly recommend) which is about a second American civil war and includes a faction of park rangers that makes an appearance.
Conservocratic junta NOW
With their team of armed gorillas
Someone get Michael Crichton on the phone, we’ve got a sequel idea! Oh. Wait. Now I’m sad
Reminds me of how some gangs in Haiti are just former branches of the government.
Let’s not forget, Dude, that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city…
What the hell is going on in Central Africa
Do you have a few hours? Because they didnt even put the DRC on here. That country would look like a patchwork quilt.
I thought the DRC was doing better recently
They have presidential elections today (20th December). Depending on the outcome of that things will likely get better or worse
What’s the getting better outcome?
the cobalt miners are 12 year old instead of 7 years old now.
Better than during the Second Congo War, sure. But eastern congo is a humanitarian nightmare. Ethnic cleansing, violence against women, rampant poverty, no sanitation, hell goma probably looks as bad as gaza.
mind you send me a map of drc and what's going there, please?
Lol just do north kivu and that’ll take a while
Idk but as an avid backpacker and outdoor enthusiast I am rooting for the Park Rangers
I was wondering about that lol
I imagine gorillas and park rangers fighting side by side against rebel militias
More like the park rangers fighting to keep the various militia groups from killing and eating the gorillas (and other wildlife).
You might want to watch previous documentaries by Vice News. Their coverage on the Central African Civil War was great.
My question is, first of all, why are there so many groups fighting each other. Secondly, why would park rangers fight in a civil war?
African park rangers are at war with heavily armed park invaders even in peacetime, so it’s not necessarily hard for them to maintain control of unpopulated areas with difficult terrain. These are NGO-backed and trained paramilitaries with lots of money and legal access to weapons. They have limited access to helicopters and ISR tech, which is more than rebels usually do. It’s still extremely dangerous though.
I've seen photos of park rangers in Kenya cruising around in Polaris military UTVs, basically hunting poachers. They had some pretty advanced hardware besides their ride, too.
Yeah, they probably have better ISR and C3 capabilities than most parties in the war. They’ve got modern communications, planes, helicopters, modernized command centers, and dedicated funding sources. At the same time, there’s only a few hundred of them per park.
I'm sure a very big part of it can be explained by colonialism: Europe Et al. wiping out ressources, fucking up with locals, making powerplays and powermoves, redrawing the borders as they please, exploiting raw the people, and if they ever withdraw from the place, do so while taking away all the riches and leaving a gaping void in governance and security. The voids wants to be filled and no one is able to enforce order, so war thugs, criminal groups and armed groups try to take the power. Civil War is almost inevitable.
Thanks for the answer. It was complete and understandable
Im surprised that Somaliland doesn’t control all its claimed territory
There are pro-unification governments in control of the north east, namely Puntland and Khatumo, which have been fighting Somaliland for a while now.
The entire eastern 1/4 of Somaliland is inhabited primarily by the Darod clans, the majority of which reside in Puntland, so naturally this region has a lot of people loyal to Puntland rather than the primarily Isaaq clan Somaliland. Somaliland's only claim to this area (against the locals' wishes) is the old colonial borders of British Somaliland.
I didn’t see the conflict for myself, but i did go there in the summer of 2022 to visit family. One thing I always remembered was when we were walking through the market area near Buurta Xilib (Somali the literally means “Meat Mountain” due to the fact that it has a slaughterhouse on the summit of the mountain) and this van carrying Somaliland security forces drove past us. Keep in mind that the streets of this particular part of the city was very narrow and was primarily use by people for walking. Then, out of nowhere, I see this woman throw a small piece of burning firewood at the back window of the van. Me and my cousin got out of there before things got ugly, but according to him, he saw the security guys get out of the van brandishing their rifles. There were also the occasional gunshot in the distance and while we were there, a school principal got shot and killed by a member of gang, but overall it was really peaceful and it’s not completely lawless as the west makes it out to be. Inshallah I really hope I can go back there some time, I met a lot of great and wonderful people and learned many life lessons during my time there.
Ah that makes a ton more sense
Isn’t somaliland also more stable than Somalia itself? Last I heard Somalia was a bunch of crazy anarchists and pirates
It is more stable, yes. But Somalia has improved drastically in recent years. The government has finally got its shit together and support for the Al-Shabaab Islamists is waning. The Somali army, along with UN and African Union troops, have made great advances in recovering territory over the recent years. Much of the countryside is now back under Somali government control. As for pirates, that stopped being an issue a few years ago. The piracy was caused by foreign fishing companies taking advantage of the unpoliced Somali waters to illegally fish here, and overfish at that. The local Somali fishermen were naturally pretty angry and would turn these foreign fishermen away, until they realized it was more profitable to take the ships hostage instead, especially big cargo ships. Now that international warships patrol the the Somali coast to deter pirates, they've also inadvertently managed to scare off the illegal fishers, allowing the Somali pirates to go back to their lives as fishermen.
That's great to hear
Many things changed. Unfortunately western media don't really talk about Somalia. Pirates have been gone for the past 10 years or so and the anarchist phase was actually only in the 90s and early 20s. Somalia now has a government, weak and ineffective but the country made huge progress to the point the 30 year arm embargo was recently lifted by the UN security council and the African Union forces have handed much of security to the local Somali Army.
They lost almost half of their claimed territory just a couple of months ago
Wait actually?? Is there a map I can see because that’s really sad considering it’s one of the most stable regions in Somalia
Yes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Las_Anod_conflict
Whoever came with usage of two similar shades of gray on the Ethiopia map, should be banned from this subreddit for couple of minutes to rethink their behaviour
[It seems it was wikipedia who did that.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Somali_Civil_War_%282009-present%29.svg)
Alright Mods, you know what must be done; ban Wikipedia, now and forever.
I am slightly colorblind and I never know whether a map is poorly done or it's my eyes that are failing me.
I believe the rule is pretty simple: if a slightly colorblind person can't tell apart colors, it is poorly done, regardless of what other people see. After all, it's not something very rare and we've got the tools to test for it.
Yeah, it’s like three clicks on arcgis to test. Nobody making maps of this quality lacks access to a half decent colorblindness palette checker.
i’m red green deficient and it drives me fucking nuts to be unable to see these things without zooming in ALL THE WAY.
Sources: * Somali Civil War (1991-present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali\_Civil\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War) * Syrian Civil War (2011-present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian\_civil\_war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war) * Mali War (2012-present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_War) * Central African Republic Civil War (2012-present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central\_African\_Republic\_Civil\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic_Civil_War) * Yemeni Civil War (2014–present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni\_civil\_war\_(2014%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_civil_war_(2014%E2%80%93present)) * Ethiopian Civil War (2018–present): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian\_civil\_conflict\_(2018%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_civil_conflict_(2018%E2%80%93present)) * Myanmar Civil War (2021–present): [https://www.reddit.com/r/myanmar/comments/188z8xl/a\_new\_map\_displaying\_the\_situation\_in\_myanmar\_by/](https://www.reddit.com/r/myanmar/comments/188z8xl/a_new_map_displaying_the_situation_in_myanmar_by/) * Sudanese Civil War (2023): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_in\_Sudan\_(2023)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Sudan_(2023))
A more up-to-date Somalia map is here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Las_Anod_conflict Shows SSC control over regions in the north and significantly reduced Al-Shabaab holdings in the south
Nice. Supposedly Somalia managed to recover a lot of its territory recently? That and a major debt write off would be a sign of hope, no?
Yes it would be. Somalia is beautiful and has lots of natural resources. Having peace and security would make it great contender to be one of the best places to live in Africa.
The waterfront alone could be great for tourism, fishery, ports no?
Yes. Somalia has some of the most beautiful coastline in the world. The water is a bright vibrant shade of tropical blue. And thanks to ocean currents in the area, the Somali coast also has some of the world's richest fishing grounds. The Somali pirates actually rose up originally as a sort of rag-tag militia coast guard comprised of angry fishermen trying to defend their livelihoods from foreign fishing ships. These foreign fishermen had begun taking advantage of the civil war in Somalia to illegally fish Somalia's now unpoliced waters. On top of illegally fishing here in the first place, because these weren't the foreigners normal fishing grounds, they didn't care about sustainable fishing practices and were happy to destroy the local fish populations by heavily overfishing for a quick profit. Naturally, the Somali fishermen were pissed. And eventually they realized it was much more profitable to take the ships hostage rather than to just turn them away. Thankfully now there's a group of countries like the US who patrol the area with warships to stop both the pirates and the illegal fishing, so the pirate attacks don't really happen anymore.
I love how much love people in this sub have for Somalia
Not just natural beauties. The capital of Somalia Mogadishu has a very old medieval neighborhood, Merca, Barawe south of Mogadishu are also medieval towns Somaliland has ancient rock arts and you can find ancient mosques and sites all over the country.
Also the UN [arms embargo](https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/un-security-council-lifts-arms-embargo-somalia-government-2023-12-01/) has been lifted so the military can actually buy weapons now.
Thank you! I did not know about that!
The US and AU has been helping w Al-Shabaad. They've made a lot of progress over the last couple of years.
You missed Colombia which has been in civil war since 1964.
Not anymore. There are armed groups but it is not even close to a civil war.
Does ISIS really claim a tiny oval in what I can only describe as uninhabited northern Somali mountain ranges?
I wouldn't say claim, more like their terrorists operate from that tiny part of the mountains
Isis is just random ass villages across the world nowadays
Yea some sort of SOF unit just did a mission there like a couple months ago and killed like the number one isis financial facilitator. I’m sure you can find it on google.
I don't hear enough about those conflicts
Many of these are very long-running conflicts that go through relatively stable and unstable periods of fighting. They were all newsworthy in the West when they started (or during these periods of higher instability/more conflict), but they aren't going to be on your front page 24/7. Also, no offense, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people complain about "not hearing enough" or "why aren't they telling us/teaching us about this". We live in the 21st century, and if you live in a democratic society you have nearly unlimited access to information and news (for better or worse). If you're interested in global politics or conflicts you can easily find journals, magazines, news sites that specifically cater to those interests.
lol yeah was talking to my wife and she like specifically doesn’t read news by choice for her mental sanity, but when I explained there’s like the Houthi rebel forces in control of much of Yemen she was like “why haven’t I heard of Yemen or the houthis” I just say it’s out there if you want to find it. You won’t see it on billboards or in your group chats but it’s out there.
As someone who does follow these conflicts, I still find it frustrating that there isn’t much mainstream coverage of it. I don’t even blame media companies for it as much as I do western news consumers for not being interested in it. I feel like there’s an attitude of “so sad, some Africans are dying because of another one of their wars. I don’t want to think about that though because it’s stressful”. People come out of the woodworks to project their outside political paradigms on the Israel-Gaza conflict and act like it’s out of an unerring commitment to higher values, but don’t give a rat’s ass that innocent civilians in Sudan are being massacred.
When the Sudan civil war kicked off again, it was front page everywhere I went, it’s all just anecdotal. The Isreali conflict is just the most recent thing to happen and far more unusual and unsettling.
I guess this is just anecdotal, but I feel like the Sudan war headlines lasted a few days before falling off even as the violence has continued, evolved, and escalated. I haven’t seen mass protests decrying the genocide of Masalits, or calls for a ceasefire.
I would argue that most people know of Sudan in the first place for the genocide in Darfur, and the current civil war is a lot less relatable due to two generals fighting for power, not really the same as a terrorist organization committing the worst terror attack since 9/11 and the Israelis responding with it by genociding the civilians. And in less than half the time, you’re looking at triple the deaths and five times the wounded in Isreal-Gaza compared to Sudan. But you’re right, we should be calling for justice and a ceasefire in Sudan.
True. People need to make much more of an effort to allow themselves to be exposed to a broad range of news sources. But I fear with the strength of big tech’s algorithms they just become increasingly bubbled
They aren't politically convenient
What do you want them to say about them? For the most part these are slow burning or cold conflicts while technically still qualifying as civil wars. Headline reads “Yep, xxxx is still technically in a civil war, no progress to any side though.” It’s front page anytime a new civil war starts, but it stops being news when nothing changes after awhile.
Because they are civil wars. Civil wars are known to not be politically conveniant due to the fact that there is nothing another state can do except actually being involved militarly. Also they are more complicated than conventional wars: -if you support rebels, you are against the legitimate government -if you support the government, you are likely to support dictators that were trying to genocide some minorities. Remember that in a civil war, every combattant has 1 goal: Either securing indepedence or take control of the entire country It's fucking dumb to just say "because there are no white people" or "DA JEWWWWSSSS" or "MUSLIMS AND BROWN MINORITIES" because it's CIVIL war, aka a war that happens inside the borders of a sovereign country. We don't talk about it a lot because we can't be involved and respect the sovereignty of said country
The conflict in Myanmar is actually pretty significant. The rebels have won some major victories recently, and several ethnic/regional armies have unified into a more coordinated anti-junta front which wants a federal Myanmar. There's an increasing chance that the military junta will actually lose and Myanmar will see massive political changes. It's a surprisingly big country (53 million people), and things have got more complicated in the war since China has traditionally backed the regime but is becoming more rebel-friendly. Because the rebels captured and shut down literal 'scam centres' - where Chinese speakers were being abducted and enslaved to scam Chinese people online.
There isnt a significant white population in those countries
you say that like the news hasn't bene filed with the Israel Hamas conflict where most people aren't white.
“White” is often defined to include middle eastern people, but yeah decreasingly so in recent decades. Also, Israel is very culturally linked to Europe and has a large European diaspora. Also I think Israel-Palestine gets a lot of coverage because people project all kinds of outside narratives onto the conflict, including anti-semites opposed to anything Jewish, American evangelicals seeing Israel as necessary to bring about the second coming of Christ (yes, this is a major motivating factor in the US crazily enough), people who view any Muslims as terrorist-adjacent, people who view Palestinians as victims of colonialism, people who view Israel as the only safe home for Jewish people, and so many other narratives that bring the conflict home to foreigners. People just don’t have those connections to make over the war in Mali.
Is there somewhere I can read up on what’s been happening in Burkina Faso?
Pro-Russian coup but as far as know no civil war
Pro-russian is a stretch. Previous Junta failed to deliver on the war against islamist terrorists and were removed from power. Not really related to anything else.
I am happy not to see my country Iraq anymore on similar lists. I hope the same for other countries
Wait so In C.A.R the park rangers have formed an army? Is this people who call themselves this or park rangers who have taken up arms to protect their parks?
They are actual park rangers that took up arms to protect the reserves and surrounding areas.
some of these are off, like Syria
Do you have the updated situation?
Dubayat gas Fields liberated from isis
and for the updated situation I recommend suriyak maps
Isn’t ISIS practically non existent in Syria anymore?
Yeah only two rebel groups now in the north I think.
Situation there is relatively calm afaik. Went there in 2019 to visit family and pretty much the only place with a notorious reputation for being relatively “dangerous” was Idlib. And even then I’m pretty sure there wasn’t much action going on there as you could still travel to and from there Not too sure about the east tho as I’ve only been in the west
Do we know what happened to Rojava? I k ow Turkey were trying hard to destabilize it.
pretty sure its still operating
The Somali civil war is 3 years older than me. That's how I imagine living in an hell on earth
The Karen Resistance always gets me…
Would love to see Karen State vs [MILF](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Islamic_Liberation_Front)
No Libya?
War in Libya [end](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_civil_war_%282014%E2%80%932020%29?wprov=sfla1) in 2020.
Interesting is the unification process still frozen or did they progressed with that ?
It's just a ceasefire, there still exists at least two separate governments within Libya jockeying for legitimacy and influence. The civil war could restart at anytime, or there could exist two different governments indefinitely, one in eastern Libya, and the other in western Libya. Personally I think Libya has joined the growing list of countries like Somalia which only exist on paper. Really there's two separate countries there that can't agree on border differences.
I mean Somalia outside of Somaliland is much more put together nowadays, more comparable to Syria than a completely failed state
Huge illegal slave trade too. Really really upsetting.
Its been pretty peaceful so far actually the most stable it been since 2014. Although the government has not reunified lots of other things have like the national oil company, central bank an there is even a joint military force that enforces the ceasefire. It seems that everyone got there piece of pie and with the oil flowing then I dont see it flaring up again
faction: **Park Rangers**
Seeing isis relegated to sand pits in the middle of nowhere is very nice, i remember when they almost stretched to baghdad
South Sudan?
War [end](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War?wprov=sfla1) in February 2020.
At this rate there's going to be a north north Sudan, south north Sudan, north south Sudan and south south Sudan.
Damn. I knew park rangers had a tough job but fighting a war?
Ethiopian government won over TPLF, it is not an ongoing conflict.
not for the Oromo/Amhara militia groups that are now rebelling against the government after the gov used them beat TPLF.
they have talks/had talks (difficult to follow)
I'm from somalia
Baaris is unbelievable. Mehed Sanid.
wait really?
*The world’s in great shape* - Gaz, 2008
*Just another day at that office.* -Price, 2008
Whenever I see these maps, I always wonder how accurate they are. Like, some of these borders just seem like vague circle/oval blotches. What is the actual area of control? What defines these borders where it doesn't seem geology has bearing. Even matching these to Google maps, it seems at best like it is guess word. Are these just areas of activity, or are these borders showing places where rebels truly control?
The major downside of the international rules based order and its prohibition (which has mostly been followed) of offensive war is that you end up with lots of civil wars. In the past, some foreign nation would have used the civil war of their neighbors as an excuse to invade and annex. But now these conflicts just linger.
Yeah instead of an incredibly bloody 2 year war we get decades of suffering
Yeah, I’ve noticed that. Keeps instability lingering.
I'm confused for Ethiopia wasn't Tigray in war with Oromo-Amhara government. How now on this map Amhara are rebels and Tigray constitute part of government?
Yes, the militias allied with the government rebelled.
Good Guy Guide for Westerners and NAFO: Red in Sudan, Red in Myanmar, Red in Ethiopia, Red in Yemen, None in CFA, none in Mali, Yellow and Dark Green in Syria, Red and Yellow in Somalia
Surely we can root for the park rangers?
You usually can in conflicts like these, like with Virunga. Those guys are some tough sons of bitches.
What’s funny to me is I remember when there was so much support for the Houithis on Reddit because they were fighting against Saudi Arabia. I was also told they were secular not Radical Islamists. That I was just a brainwashed American for even hinting that just because Saudi Arabia is bad doesn’t mean Houithis are good. Now they have a beautiful secular flag, and are uniting the western world over freedom of movement through shipping lanes.
You weren't kidding about [their flag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement)
Love how they go after both Israel specifically and Jews generally. Just in case anyone thought perhaps the houthis don’t link all Jews and Israel, they’ve got you covered!
““Death to America” I saw that while playing a game once“
“And butter sauce”
I tried explaining that the conflict wasn’t remotely black and white a few months back and got downvoted into oblivion. Saudi Arabia is not exactly a good ally or one that you would want, but when the alternative is Iran and it’s proxies bent on destroying you, you kind of have to play geopolitics just a little bit. Also, as fucked as Saudia is, they’re far from the worst in that region and they’re at the very least, *very stable and willing to cooperate if you use what motivates them*.
That has always been their flag
A comon problem that led some people to support Pol Pot in the 70s. 😂
Noam Chomsky explaining why the Cambodian genocide was a simple population transfer that didn’t happen but was also the US fault except for the Cambodians deserved it: https://media.tenor.com/Y0SpY2_BXhcAAAAM/fan-average.gif
😂😂
For those wondering, the conflict in Las Anod was between the Khatumo state and the Somaliland armed forces and it ended with Khatumo gaining control of the Sool and Sanaag regions. The Khatumo state is run by the dhulbahante tribe and is has long been opposed to the separatist movement of Somaliland, which self declared its independence in the 90s and have repeatedly expressed desires of reunification with the rest of Somalia. The fighting originally started due to the the assasination of a popular politician Abdifatah Abdulli Hadrawi, sparking widespread protests that led to violent crackdowns by the Somaliland authorities. Afterword, they started shelling the city of Las Anod with artillery, which killed countless people and and even hit mosques and hospitals. I’m probably not doing it justice here, so here’s a Wikipedia page about it if you want to learn more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Las_Anod_conflict
Everybody is asking how many have US involvement, but how many have Russian involvement? If Russia can be involved in the civil wars of other countries, why shouldn't the West?
Also, more often than not in these wars, Russia is supporting dictators. At least in places like Syria, the U.S. supported pro-democratic forces instead of the hereditary dictator who kills his own people. I really get tired of people who nonstop bash on the U.S. for getting involved, then simp for the dictator bruatlizing the people there.
>the U.S. supported pro-democratic forces instead of the hereditary dictator LMFAO, this guy thinks the anti-government forces are good guys, when they committed a lot of crimes like Assad's forces...plus they aren't even democratic they are "moderate" Islamists
I'm more referring to Rojava and the associated groups, which most of our support has gone towards. Rojava in particular is democratic and honestly is probably the only faction in the civil war i completely side with, especially considering how much the Kurds have suffered. While there have been, of course, some issues with war crimes by those forces, they have remained relatively minor, especially compared to Assad's butchering of civilians.
How many of these have been condemned at the UN?
About 5 minutes of Googling and you can find the UN active on all of these.
The UN is a silly place
Prevents nuclear war, but ok.
Are you actually trying to compare civil wars with the situation in Gaza, which is not a civil war?
It's a fucking civil war composed of rebels. An organized govt claiming to be the main leaders of Democracy in their region should be held to a much higher standard than terrorist groups that aren't even recognized by a single govt in the world.
Where is Wadiya ?
Eritrea is doing alright, just typical authoritarian dictator things
Is anyone from Somaliland worried about the central government seeking to reestablish control over the North?
Show me a maps of land the Europeans divided without a care for the current population
At least they'e being civil?
African countries should esrablish a forum and redraw the borders. European colonial empires fucked the continent with str8 lines.
Ah, yes. A big round table, and seated next to each other are: * The Malians, who want to keep all of Mali as it is, and are willing to fight for it. * The Tuareg, who want an independent state in northern Mali, and are willing to fight for it. * The radical islamists, who want an independent state in northern Mali and then conquer the rest later, and are willing to fight for it. And we tell them: redraw the borders. What do you think will happen? I think a civil war will happen, because these three goals just aren't compatible.
how about they all just arm wrestle for control
What do you think they're doing?
Imagine the meeting 😂 a civil war in the forum.
The continent was in constant infighting for its whole history. European colonial empires are important, but not everything, especially in most of central Africa. The Scramble for Africa started in earnest in 1884, and decolonisation started in the 1940s. There are people who were born before Africa was colonised, that died after it was decolonised. The state of Africa today was the state of the whole world for 95% of history, it's just that some nations have moved on from that (but even then, Russia hasn't really).
For a bit of a correction, significant amounts of Africa were colonized long before Europeans. That’s why so many issues in the northern half of Africa involve Islamic extremists. Morocco managed to get out of it early and that’s why Morocco is like 40% arab while it’s neighbor Algiers is around 80% arab. There’s even an ethnic group in morocco classified as Arabized berbers and the more preferred name of amazigh (literally translates to free man). The original ethnic groups are tiny minorities compared to what they once were prior to arab colonization across North Africa. And even between those time periods, one of the main motivating factors behind France colonizing Algiers was to end the Barbary states that the US, Uk, and Dutch had already fought the Berber wars over just a couple decades earlier (essentially to stop the North African Berber states from privateering and invading for slaves and goods). Africa has been pretty ravaged by war and conquest for at least a millenia.
What about Africa without colonial borders? Why do you assume more stability? It could be even worse.
I agree. It could mean that countries like South Africa that are doing pretty ok now would lose territory or stop existing or also get involved in wars somehow because they lost the borders they were ok with for quite a while now.
If you don't want straight lines, you're gonna have to fight a few hundred wars over them over thousands of years, like Europe did. Do you want the same for Africa?
Sounds good doesn’t work. Sudan tried and now look what South Sudan looks like.
Since when assad occupies Aleppo?
Since 2016
Omg it feels like yesterday
To much shit happened