|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 26 2016 01:16 Silvanel wrote: Its funny how only people from countries that do not border Russia want closer relationship with Russia. France has a deep history with Russia (and the US actually). It's nothing new.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 26 2016 01:16 Silvanel wrote: Its funny how only people from countries that do not border Russia want closer relationship with Russia. It's funny how some people have a selective knowledge of geography and political alliances.
|
On August 26 2016 02:11 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 01:16 Silvanel wrote: Its funny how only people from countries that do not border Russia want closer relationship with Russia. France has a deep history with Russia (and the US actually). It's nothing new.
I think he meant the attitude of posters like a_flayer, not the general willingness to cooperate with Russia. Good luck trying to find a person from a democratic country that shares a border with Russia who would say something like this:
well honestly, maybe Putin isn't the demon he is made out to be, so yeah, I am going to listen what he is saying just to even out my point of view a little. I think if we leave Russia to sort out its internal mess, and treat them according to the same standard we treat America, they are not a threat to our way of life in Europe and I feel that building up a network of missile systems across its border is unnecessary and simply a provocation to start a war, rather than something that will "keep the peace". Imagine if we built a network of missiles around America? How would they respond to such an act?
There is nothing inherently wrong with cooperating with Russia. My country is very anti-Russian but they're still one of our most important economic partners and it would be stupid to stop the trade between us entirely. However sometimes you have to choose between safety and cooperation. We always get "triggered" when someone says that Russia is not a threat to anyone or that expanding NATO to the east was a mistake. Even if the Americans are not saints, I still want their protective umbrella over my head because Russia IS a threat to my region and the US are not.
Edit: I guess you could say expanding NATO was not in the Dutch interest but it certainly was in the interest of the US, Germany (they get to control us through the EU and NATO is necessary to protect the EU as long as there is no European army) and Eastern European countries.
|
Russia is not a threat for europe, it's one of its essential component, and it has been the case since the beginning of the idea of europe. Now it's a player, which defend its interests, and who have deeply conflictual interest with us from time to time, but they're not sworn ennemies. I also think it's a huge mistake to present Russia as the big ennemy, it's a huge country that we should respect, it has a place in the "concert" of nations, much like all eastern european countries. But if what you desire is to bully russia into submission, then you're suicidal.
|
WhiteDog, is Ukraine Europe to you?
|
On August 26 2016 03:41 Sent. wrote: WhiteDog, is Ukraine Europe to you? It is a part of Europe, like Russia or France.
Out of curiosity, what is your point ? That we should prepare for war against Russia for Crimea ? The modern europe, demilitarized and completly drenched in stupidity, against Putin's Russia ?
|
I'm defending the current course of action (yes to sanctions but no to direct confrontation). If Ukraine manages to reform itself we can invite what will be left of it to the EU and NATO, regardless of Russian stance. Crimea was taken illegally but it "belongs" to Russia so we should pretend it doesn't exist until we can find a diplomatic solution.
Russia gets limited access to the "concert" until she learns to respect other players.
|
In my opinion, the place of Ukraine in Europe should be negociated by EU, NATO and Russia because it's an important part of the puzzle. We can discuss with Russia, it's not ISIS, and I'm not sure it wants direct war with europe, at least nothing prove it. What Russia wants for sure is to gain back its influence and wants to be respected as a powerful state, both things it will have either by force or by consent. As you say, a diplomatic solution is the best, but this kind of solution will not be found if we continue to picture russia as evil.
|
On August 26 2016 03:37 WhiteDog wrote: Russia is not a threat for europe, it's one of its essential component, and it has been the case since the beginning of the idea of europe. Now it's a player, which defend its interests, and who have deeply conflictual interest with us from time to time, but they're not sworn ennemies. I also think it's a huge mistake to present Russia as the big ennemy, it's a huge country that we should respect, it has a place in the "concert" of nations, much like all eastern european countries. But if what you desire is to bully russia into submission, then you're suicidal. Russia is a threat for Europe, just like any big nation is a threat to any big-or-almost-big nation. I'm sure Russia wouldn't like it too much if Europeans started to feel united by the European project instead of rejecting it, for example. Though Russia wouldn't be alone in that case, the US would also dislike it as soon as Europe wouldn't be used for its own interests.
|
How about Ukraine decide for themselves what they want? If they want to join NATO that is fine if they want to stick to Russia that's their choice. It's surreal to me how you're all up in arms over sovereignty if we're talking about the EU but the place of Ukraine in Europe should be negotiated by the EU, NATO and Russia.
|
ukraine, like many countries has no choice but to choose the lesser of the two evils
but otherworld is right in a sense, are europeans ready to endorse the role of a superpower ? having to assume choices and having a say in the course of the world? or are they satisfied being a kind of second rate power ?
the particularity of europe is that it can become a true superpower whenever it wants
|
On August 26 2016 04:30 Makro wrote: ukraine, like many countries has no choice but to choose the lesser of the two evils
but otherworld is right in a sense, are europeans ready to endorse the role of a superpower ? having to assume choices and having a say in the course of the world? or are they satisfied being a kind of second rate power ?
the particularity of europe is that it can become a true superpower whenever it wants And that superpower will speak german ?
Russia has been an important piece of europe, next to Germany, France, the UK - think about it from a cultural standpoint and it's pretty clear. And Europe will always be that : a complex space structured around various alliances and opposition that change from time to time. Somehow, since the end of the second world war, we've taken more and more distances with Russia and now it's seen as a foreign force willing to invade a "us" that is not unified nor clearly defined (Turkey is in or out lolz ?). Yes, I feel like talking and negociating is a good way to get out of such conflicts with what is a cousin-state more than anything.
RvB you are entirely right. The problem is that it has been 30 years that europe showed it was not able to move, that's why people want sovereignty now : because Europe as an institution does not have what it takes to make a decent enough compromise between the very diverse interests that made it. Russia, on the other hand, seems willing to find a common ground.
|
On August 26 2016 04:30 Makro wrote: the particularity of europe is that it can become a true superpower whenever it wants How? European nations are not even able to help each other or collectively solve a minor refugee crisis. They didn't even have the basic instinct to keep the closest nations (for instance in North Africa or Middle East) as stable as possible to avoid backfire.
People fantasize all the time about “Europe's potential,” but actually there is no unity in Europe...
|
by his size and economy, that's what i was refering to
i know that there is actually no common ground at all making it possible to this day, whitedog's question being spot on
|
Russia is not, was not and will not be part "Europe". Sure its part of it geographicallyy speaking but Russia is so big it has its own "gravity". Russia has its own culture, aspirations, power projection and sphere of inlfuence. There is no desire there to be part of "Europe". Rather that Europe be part of Russia than the other way around. Even Russians will tell You that.
|
On August 26 2016 04:30 Makro wrote: ukraine, like many countries has no choice but to choose the lesser of the two evils
but otherworld is right in a sense, are europeans ready to endorse the role of a superpower ? having to assume choices and having a say in the course of the world? or are they satisfied being a kind of second rate power ?
the particularity of europe is that it can become a true superpower whenever it wants
The birth process of a nation is not easy as liberals think, it is a very long cultural, political and even fantasmed processus who took ages even centuries, France has not the same interests as Poland, Germany and any others countries and the reciproque is true and there are different nations, Europe is not like USA, this is a mosaïque of different and very old cultures. I feel like I am an European but not a member of EU and thinking you can erase nations interests by unity of a superpower is an illusion, at least it currently is, maybe in two or three centuries, it will become a possibility but not yet. The result is that it lacks of a real sovereignity, so its legitimity is totally technocratic. Hence a wish for a federal EU will always be a weak, bureaucratic and neoliberal stuff who will always sign treatie like the TTIP against any structured power.
|
On August 26 2016 05:02 Silvanel wrote: Russia is not, was not and will not be part "Europe". Sure its part of it geographicallyy speaking but Russia is so big it has its own "gravity". Russia has its own culture, aspirations, power projection and sphere of inlfuence. There is no desire there to be part of "Europe". Moreso that Europe be part of Russia than the other way around. Even Russians will tell You that.
Except historically it has always been part of the european power play. It traded many citizens with the west, and exchanged alliances / information with it constantly through out history. The idea that it has its own culture is also weird - so you think Poland and Spain have the "same" culture ? And the UK is not part of Europe just because it left the union ? Geographically, a quarter of its territory is part of Europe, but this quarter contain more than 3/4 of its population, and is its historical place of birth.
|
It's just a bunch of historical romanticism. Russia is authoritarian, has no real independent legal authority, acts on European territory by use of force and essentially disregards most basic democratic rights. That's not compatible with European political values.
|
On August 26 2016 05:20 Nyxisto wrote: It's just a bunch of historical romanticism. Russia is authoritarian, has no real independent legal authority, acts on European territory by use of force and essentially disregards most basic democratic rights. That's not compatible with European political values. Are you saying France, the UK, Spain, Italy and Germany were never authoritarian and never used force ?
|
Sure they were, I wouldn't exactly consider the German Empire or the Third Reich compatible with Europe either
|
|
|
|