European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1096

On May 23 2018 06:32 TheDwf wrote:

The trip actually generated little comment in the French medias, the smear campaign about "Putin's man" is already a few years old.

From his own blog, what he wanted to do with the trip in Russia: (quotes in italic)

- His "political intention" was to "mark with a symbolic gesture the refusal of war and escalation with Russia".
- He was also there to celebrate the anniversary of the victory over nazis, a "way to remember the danger that far-right represents in Europe".
- "My message is that we can be friendly to Russia and the Russian people without being a partisan of the party in power"


Yup, same in France

On May 23 2018 19:17 mahrgell wrote:
An amusing statistic: The second largest nationality group to get a German citizenship (behind the Turks, no surprise) in 2017 has been the Brits.

Turkey: 14984
UK: 7493
Poland: 6613
Italy: 4256
Rumania: 4238

Especially interesting are the British numbers if you look at the years before. 2016 only 2865 Brits got the German citizenship. 2015 only 622!

And no, this statistic is not about "ohhhh look how the UK is going down". Those few thousand have no effect. But it is still interesting what an impact such a decision can have.

On May 23 2018 20:50 mahrgell wrote:
Is it really worth to list all the strikes in France?
Half the year the average German is drinking in Mallorca and the average French is on strike.

On May 23 2018 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
I can't look at events surrounding our conflict with Russia and draw the same kind of conclusions that you guys do. I see consistent diplomatic failures on our ("the West") part that led to escalation. Yes, the Russians are the ones who escalate into events that don't have our approval, but it's not as if we don't perfectly set up the scene for such an escalation. I'm not really interested in what the Russians do, because I don't expect to be able to control what other nations do, and see their actions as simply part of the puzzle of human life on Earth. In the same way that I blame Western governments for setting up the scene for global terrorism to foster (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Mosques, Immigration, Oil, Bombing, Invasion, Regime Change, etc), it is them who set up the scene for Russia to act in the way that it does.

In the end, I just think it's very disconcerting the way the tensions have risen over the years. The way I see it, talking to Russia is basically the only way to prevent war. Each time, in the lead up to the points of conflict, the West has refused to engage with Russia in diplomatic conversation in very specific circumstances that resulted in the Russian transgressions.

Exhibit A: Senior negotiator describes rejection of alleged peace proposal in Syria – since which time tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced. Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal.

You can argue how it wasn't an honest offer, you can argue how it wouldn't have led to peace because the rebels didn't want it. All of those arguments are moot in my eyes, as we should never push for violence where there is a chance for peace. Which is what the West did instead through the CIA training and smuggling of weapons, etc. We failed to engage in something as simple as a conversation in favor of violence. But yeah, the Russians definitely escalated when they took a hard line to support Assad. What did the Americans call it? Throwing fuel on the fire?

Exhibit B: During the summit, President Yanukovych stated that Ukraine still wanted to sign the Association Agreement but that it needed substantial financial aid to compensate it for the threatened response from Russia, and he proposed starting three-way talks between Russia, Ukraine, and the EU. The EU rejected trilateral talks.

You can make the arguments that Russia had no business involving themselves there. But they had concerns. Whether we think they're valid or not is irrelevant. They tried to raise their concerns in their crude barbaric way, and we refused to talk. You might think that is a "strong way of handling Russia", but that doesn't hold any weight in my opinion. Because refusing to talk doesn't make Russia's strategic interests go away and, as was hopefully made evident to you by their subsequent actions, they will continue to act to protect those strategic interests.

All these refusals to talk are a great way to start this kind of chaos. It is only Putin's absolutely measured and calculated response that prevents all-out war. And make no mistake, Putin's actions are responses. You see this being said constantly by experts at the Brookings Institute; Chicaco Council of Foreign Affairs, Atlantic Council, etc: "Putin is reactionary, he has no long term plans." Perhaps it is worth investigating what Putin is responding to? Imagine if some kind of Trump-ish character was leading Russia and was faced with a refusal of diplomatic engagement like this. We'd be at war by now.

You can yell all you want about how NATO is not a threat to Russia, but even Yeltsin -- who is considered the American puppet President -- opposed NATO expansion once the Russian version of the Pentagon told him the score. This leads me to believe that any leader in Russia would hold the position that Putin does now -- which means we have to live with and recognize that point of view. Just like we have to live with the point of view that Osama Bin Laden has -- and people in the region continue to have. But we live in utter denial, instead, and just pretend that the Russian point of view is simply invalid. We think our view is so superior and supreme (Europeans/Aryans/whites rule!) that we even outright deny them diplomatic conversation when they consider their security interests are under threat. It seems utterly crazy to me.

Now take the attempted murder in Britain. A terrible thing by Russia: two people were poisoned, an ex-Russian spy and his daughter. How many Russian diplomats did we expel in total across Europe? A hundred, two hundred? And that was before we even knew if the Skripals would survive. They're fine now. But the diplomats are still gone, all because two people were sick for a few weeks. This means there will be even less opportunity to talk. And every time we refuse to talk, it leads to more conflict and heightened tensions.

Sure, Russia is a nightmare to work with. They're unreliable, invade nations, kill people across the world, they're hard to make lasting deals with, they hack everything and everyone, they interfere in elections, they have a terrible farce of a democracy that results in authoritarian leaders that make war, etc. But it is possible to talk to them, so I don't think we should cut off ties with the US altogether despite all their flaws. We should engage diplomatically with Russia at every opportunity, rather than let them loose on the world without any diplomatic engagement whatsoever, which is what we seem to be doing now. Even if they force themselves in on the conversation, it is not "showing weakness" to be open to talks.

This is also why RT is important. The lines of communication need to be open at all levels. Between our governments, between our people, etc. Propaganda be damned. Because talking prevents war and resolves conflicts.

Centrists Are the Most Hostile to Democracy, Not Extremists

The warning signs are flashing red: Democracy is under threat. Across Europe and North America, candidates are more authoritarian, party systems are more volatile, and citizens are more hostile to the norms and institutions of liberal democracy.

These trends have prompted a major debate between those who view political discontent as economic, cultural or generational in origin. But all of these explanations share one basic assumption: The threat is coming from the political extremes.

On the right, ethno-nationalists and libertarians are accused of supporting fascist politics; on the left, campus radicals and the so-called antifa movement are accused of betraying liberal principles. Across the board, the assumption is that radical views go hand in hand with support for authoritarianism, while moderation suggests a more committed approach to the democratic process.

Is it true?

Maybe not. My research suggests that across Europe and North America, centrists are the least supportive of democracy, the least committed to its institutions and the most supportive of authoritarianism.

(...)

On May 24 2018 18:20 TheDwf wrote:

Source

Must read

On May 24 2018 18:20 TheDwf wrote:

Source

Must read

They repeat the great mantras of the era: The president is the president of “stability,” the antithesis to the era of “confusion and twilight” in the 1990s. “Stability”—the word is repeated again and again in a myriad seemingly irrelevant contexts until it echoes and tolls like a great bell and seems to mean everything good; anyone who opposes the president is an enemy of the great God of “stability.” “Effective manager,” a term quarried from Western corporate speak, is transmuted into a term to venerate the president as the most “effective manager” of all. “Effective” becomes the raison d’être for everything: Stalin was an “effective manager” who had to make sacrifices for the sake of being “effective.”

At a press conference in The Hague on Thursday, the investigators showed photo and video evidence that they said proved they had identified the specific BUK system responsible for shooting down the plane. They said they had “legal and convincing evidence which will stand in a courtroom” that the BUK system involved came from the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade based in Kursk, in western Russia.

For the first time, the investigators appeared to confirm that the Russian military was complicit in the downing of the plane, at the very least by providing the missile system used.

On May 24 2018 22:01 Dan HH wrote:
What do you guys think of the General Data Protection Regulation? Today the company I work for had us sign that we agree to have our data used by them. I imagine online the effect will be similar to the cookies agreement popup, or just an extra line in the ToS when making accounts. It should prevent them from selling your data but we'll see how enforecable that is.

On May 24 2018 23:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Did they give you any information on what they are using the data for, your rights of access and right to refuse withdraw consent, who to contact if you want to apply your rights, and what authority to contact in case of complaint?

We’re sorry. This site is temporarily unavailable.
We recognise you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore cannot grant you access at this time.

For any issues, contact us.

(403 error.)