> You have an extremely unpopular leader trying to sieze power by force, presumably soon banning opposition parties and more
By this logic America won when Assad won the Syrian civil war. In geopolitics, power trumps popularity.
By this logic America won when Assad won the Syrian civil war. In geopolitics, power trumps popularity.
It's more akin to saying that states adversarial to the US won after the CIA overthrew a popular secular democracy in Iran, and installed a extremely unpopular puppet monarchy that was obseqious to the US.
In general maintaining power without relatively widespread support is quite difficult - probably even more so in the digital era which makes conspiracies so much easier to organise.
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrian...
"Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war" is not 55% approval rating, it's 55% making the pragmatic choice against civil war.
> maintaining power without relatively widespread support is quite difficult
Strange claim in a thread about the Korean peninsula.
Seems there yet remains more to power than titles and declarations.
He hasn't done anything illegal. Being asked to resign or forced to by impeachment are more likely.
If there were a prediction market for this within 3 years, I'd expect the line to be around 70%. He just did a weird spin on the 'if you go after the king, don't miss' and missed.