Russia - threadbanned users in OP

It's a nice theory wibbs, but there are plenty of well respected academics who would disagree with you on that. And plenty agree with me. Who is right? We'll probably never know without a time machine.

Nope. There isn't a single "well respected academic" - unless he/she's been hard at the vinum, or their academic specialty is plate tectonics - who would describe the western Roman empire at her end or for three centuries before it as a democracy. It went from a kingdom, to a republic to an empire ruled by autocratic emperors. Even when it was a republic democracy was loose enough, but in imperial times it was the near definition of an autocracy. There's a reason why Caesar, led to titles like Kaiser and Czar.

You're going with a "happiness index" as the foundation of your argument? Really, that's what you're going with? lol

It's a pretty good standard to judge crime, economic, corruption, equality, health, even longevity stats. And the weak western democracies rule the roost in these metrics. Put it another way: Where do those from second and third world nations look to and want to move to? The west.

Rome didn't collapse in a day, and neither will western democracies. But because our system of governance is now consistently producing sub-par leadership across the board, just like Rome it's only a matter of time before our societies begin to crumble. And most people with their eyes open can already see the early stages of this process.

Ah here we go, the open your eyes argument. Jaysus. The fall of major civilisations is generally pretty easy to see even in the throes of them. Economics is a huge part of it, famine, local climate change, war, trade declining and so on. The problem for your theory is that for the most part in the West these metrics stabalised or went up even with the "sub par leadership".

You seem to think I'm trying to endorse Putin and Russia. That was not my intention behind these remarks, I was simply pointing out that our own systems here in the west are not as strong or impressive as many people think. But again, just like in Rome, there is this supreme arrogance in our society that seems to blind many people to the reality unfolding in front of them.

We have much bigger problems on the horizon than Putin and Russia. In fact, this war in Ukraine has actually been described by a number of people as a symptom of western decline. You said yourself that Rome engaged in a number of stupid wars near the end, and I don't disagree with you on that particular point... but how many foolish wars have the west now been engaged in within recent memory? (proxy or otherwise)

The only ones calling this a symptom tend to be those who want it to decline, or those who think they have some sekrit knowledge. Those who go on about Western, usually American hegemony(while not getting that America =/= The West), mostly from places where their own people want to get into the same west. Like eejits in Africa and India in this conflict who are supporting Russia against the "West". Problem being they've not opened a history book, or stupidly think just because Russia didn't colonise them that's OK. Russia didn't need to. It carved its own empire on land all the way to the Pacific planting and ruling over all the ethniciities along the way and they didn't do it with fluffy toys and sweets. Russia is the last old style White "Christian" empire on Earth. If they had forged overseas empires they'd have been just as bad as the English, Dutch, French, Belgians etc. America for her part took over to large degree after the fall of the other European overseas empires because Hitler was trying to get in on that imperial action. While Russia was able to carve up Eastern Europe as they had planned to with Hitler.

Your other problem and the difference between Rome's end and "The West" now is that the West, or rather America could actually afford to prosecute these wars, daft as they were. Hell WW2 basically made them the economic powerhouse. They also transmitted their hard and soft power. While America has a shedload of social problems and massive wealth inequity and I put Europe way ahead of them, they're still the richest nation on earth and with the most capable military machine.

I'm sure the Romans probably made valid excuses for these conflicts at the time too. But hindsight being 20/20, they were deemed to have contributed to their ultimate demise.

Actually not so much. There was quite the pushback. That's one reason why they fell. In the West. Rome in the east kept going for another 1000 years thanks very much(and called themselves Romans, not Byzantines. Mehmet the second who took the city added to his titles Qayser i Rom/Caesar of the Romans). Indeed it can be argued the Russians/Eastern Europeans took up that mantle of the eastern empire in their structure and religion and iconography. This is the Russian presidents flag of office today:

The double headed eagle of Byzantium.

So European"Western" countries and cultures have proven to be remarkably robust and resistant to decline. Indeed the only time when the great Chinese empire had a higher economic output was during the Tang, the period we refer to as the Dark Ages in Europe. The ones that weren't so resistant were those that were stagnant; culturally, socially, politically, economically and technologically. Which fits this picture better? Russia or Western Europe, or America for that matter?