|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 26 2016 08:41 Nyxisto wrote:
Controlling large strategic sectors and failing to diversify towards service economies is pretty typical of most authoritarian states because it's pretty much the only way to generate a stable income without giving up a grip on core institutions. If they'd not do that they'd have to let more information in, foreign capital, foreign workers and so on and that's not the kind of thing that the Russian government likes at the moment.
There's also a lot of authoritarianism in other sectors. Putin has put a lot of the siloviki/intelligence faction in core administrative positions (who are notoriously paranoid, like all intelligence guys) and the number of dead or locked up journalists is pretty staggering. It wasn't that bad during his first term in office before he did the tandem thing with Medvedew.
First of all, a lot of Polish-style spelling here with w's where there should be v's. I saw a few were edited out, but you missed one. It sort of makes me cringe when it's used for Russian words -.-.
Anyways, on to the main point. Again, Russia definitely has an authoritarian streak and there's plenty that is worthy of criticism. You did, however, make the rather dubious claim that things are actively getting worse, and your justification seems to be a lot of generalizations that are valid observations but also non-sequiturs. The problem is that all of the "worrying trends" you cite are either incorrect or are actually remedies to an even shittier situation.
Intelligence/military folk in government has obvious flaws, and yet there has been enough evidence of an attempt by foreign actors to undermine the Russian government which sort of justifies those kind of people being in power. The government recovered a lot of "strategic" industries - energy, utilities, military - because the privatization was a giant mess and was mostly just a money grab that destroyed the industrial capacity of the nation (and in recent times there has been an effort to sell off some of those companies, albeit for budgetary reasons). Furthermore, at the time the government was pretty severely cash-strapped so it was pretty much necessary that they keep the industries that generate a stable income to avoid a downward spiral. Many other issues related to military/security affairs that are easy to dismiss from the position of being a stable West European nation if you are blind to different contexts.
Diversifying the economy, definitely an issue but the reason it hasn't been diversified more is because of corruption (which has improved significantly) that prevented people from actually doing business. In fact that was one of the major issues that was going to lead Russia into a recession independent of the Ukraine issue. Service industries - most notably IT - have definitely seen substantial growth over the past few years so that claim is definitely simply incorrect. Also plenty of cooperation with foreign entities (especially in energy and tech) and immigration (second largest immigrant population as of 2 years ago, might be overtaken by Germany now).
|
The only remedy to whatever Yeltsin produced is hardly China like authoritarianism. Many ex USSR nations around that transitioned to functioning democracies with some hickups in between. It's not only getting a little worrisome from a Western liberal perspective but also some of Putin's more liberal ex allies have started to jump ship. There's a pretty fine line between strong military leader types that try to be benevolent dictators and idiots that completely lose it after they've been in power for too long. Putin's not exactly looking like he has a long term plan laid out. Even the Crimea grab looked like complete opportunism just to stick the finger to the rest of the world.
|
Whitedog => well, simple, look at what is shared by Western European countries nowadays. There's nothing Russian in that. Classical Russian culture is modeled after Western European cultures because at that time everything was modeled after W.E. cultures anyways. But modern Russian culture? It's not "not European", but it's not European either.
As for France, no I don't wish to see Germany or France suppress every other European nation, but it's a long-term viable way of doing stuff, apparently. As for Belgium and Switzerland, well, you'll notice that the EU was built as a tampon between the US and the USSR...
|
On August 26 2016 11:08 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 09:59 WhiteDog wrote:
Nyx you mix everything up ... Just because France and Germany have deep historical ties does not mean that the first and the second world war were okay. We're not saying Russia is great and fun and everything, we're just saying we're stuck with it, so we need to find a common ground. I'm not quite sure what this post is supposed to imply. Are you saying that Germany started the world wars and therefore France needs to remain apprehensive?As for Russia. In my mind it is perfectly rational for the baltic states to fear Russian annexation, in the same way it is perfectly rational for Iran to fear an american bomb campaign on invasion. Not saying that Russia (Or america for that matter) is evil or anything. But they have made it quite clear that they consider the baltic states within their sphere of influence, and for those of us who live there (Though Sweden probably comes last on any list if there is one) it is perfectly rational to seek protection in cooperation with the Americans or further EU integration (including defense). Again, I'm not trying to make Russia out to be evil, but just like the annexation of the Crimea was perfectly rational (and most people living there were russian anyhow) so would the annexation of Gotland (swedish island) be perfectly strategically rational (and basically noone lives there anyway, moving them all would be easy). And with that in mind, is it so strange to be apprehensive of Russian millitary spending? Obviously in the medium and long term, further cooperation, with more trade, more exchange etc will hopefully diffuse the situation to everyones benefit. But in the meantime being wary seems like a good choice.
Nothing of the sort, I'm not sure we can that easily know who is exactly at the start of the world wars either, I was just criticizing this idea that because we have a "bond to great acient Russians that somehow makes annexing Crimea less wrong or whatever."
Problem is the baltic states are making things worse by thinking they can do what they want without any kind of exchange with Russia. It's how it is, strong powers always bully weak ones, and you get out of that through diplomacy, escalation is a game where we all lose. In my mind, for too long european countries thought Russia was a washed up country that we could just ignore.
I don't care about trade, I think it's overrated. Trading between France and Germany was at all time high just before the first world war, didn't change much.
The annexation of Crimea was forecast by some various agencies all around the world I believe ? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that if a situation is that easy to forecast, then maybe change the course of action rather than crying when expectations meet reality - like through negociations with Russia.
On August 26 2016 15:00 OtherWorld wrote:
Whitedog => well, simple, look at what is shared by Western European countries nowadays. There's nothing Russian in that. Classical Russian culture is modeled after Western European cultures because at that time everything was modeled after W.E. cultures anyways. But modern Russian culture? It's not "not European", but it's not European either.
As for France, no I don't wish to see Germany or France suppress every other European nation, but it's a long-term viable way of doing stuff, apparently. As for Belgium and Switzerland, well, you'll notice that the EU was built as a tampon between the US and the USSR...
The thing is the European Union didn't give europe its cultural coherence, nor did its opposition to the USSR (but Russia did participate). The idea of europe predated the two world wars. And maybe one of the problem of the european union is the fact that Russia is completly out of it. At the moment, the european union is one country in the peak of its form, sure of itself (Germany) and who do not move on any topic, one country who is not one anymore (France) and led by dimwit, and the brother that occasionally comes on weekend to stir shit up and go back to its Island the rest of the week, and this unbalanced state of affair is not great to permit a real compromise between the very diverse interests that compose the union.
|
On August 26 2016 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 05:51 OtherWorld wrote:On August 26 2016 04:35 WhiteDog wrote: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. Who cares about what it speaks, especially in this time and age? Belgium, though being a very young nation with three languages on its territory, managed to achieve more than most other European countries relatively to their size ; Switzerland has lived in peace and prosperity for centuries despite its diversity ; France was not a clearly defined nation speaking the same language before French kings decided to force a nation into it ; the Roman Empire reigned over an eclectic mix of cultures for centuries. There are dozens of ways of building a nation out of several cultures. There's no need for linguistic unity for a nation to exist, even though that notion is very strange to the heavily centralized and authoritarian French way of seeing the world. I also completely fail to see how Russia is part of our culture. Currently, the three pillars of Western European culture, if that's even a thing, are the Enlightenment principles of liberty, etc (and the Enlightenment philosophers were French, Germans, etc, not Russian) ; the German idea of social market economy ; and the heavy addition of American popular culture in European countries' popular cultures since the end of WWII. Where is Russia in all of this? I disagree a whole lot with you on this. French kings unified the nation through brute force and generations of opression. You want the same for europe ? Belgium is not an exemple, it basically exist because it is located between two european powers, France and Germany, much like Switzerland, and as such played the role of tampon while welcoming all the pariah who were fleeing those countries. I don't know where you got those pillars of western european culture. There's no unified european culture, France is pretty far off from the UK and Germany in many aspects, the only thing we really have in common is shared history, litterature, philosophy and art and we have that in common with Russia. Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 05:57 LegalLord wrote:On August 26 2016 05:45 Nyxisto wrote:On August 26 2016 05:40 LegalLord wrote:
Russia is definitely more authoritarian than average for European nations. The idea that it's getting worse, or that Putin is some sort of Hitler/Stalin/czar figure, is just opportune fearmongering. It's definitely getting worse though. Just take some indicator like the amount of state owned enterprises. I'm pretty sure Russia is approaching something like 70% or 80% of the economy again. This alone is pretty extreme. The Russian state has greatly expanded the grip it has on all kinds of institutions. Going to have to ask you to be a lot more specific about what you mean. As it has been defined so far your "more authoritarian" claim is pretty nebulous. The Russian government holds a lot of "strategic companies" under its control, and their relative value is pretty high right now if looking at nominal GDP values, but I'm not seeing what you claim to be true. You seem to know quite a lot on Russia Legal, do you study international politics or is it for other reasons ?
The Netherlands is a good example of a united country which started out consisting of culturally very different regions. The Dutch republic was a looser federation than thr EU probably and a lot of the regions did not even choose to join.
|
On August 26 2016 16:30 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:On August 26 2016 05:51 OtherWorld wrote:On August 26 2016 04:35 WhiteDog wrote: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. Who cares about what it speaks, especially in this time and age? Belgium, though being a very young nation with three languages on its territory, managed to achieve more than most other European countries relatively to their size ; Switzerland has lived in peace and prosperity for centuries despite its diversity ; France was not a clearly defined nation speaking the same language before French kings decided to force a nation into it ; the Roman Empire reigned over an eclectic mix of cultures for centuries. There are dozens of ways of building a nation out of several cultures. There's no need for linguistic unity for a nation to exist, even though that notion is very strange to the heavily centralized and authoritarian French way of seeing the world. I also completely fail to see how Russia is part of our culture. Currently, the three pillars of Western European culture, if that's even a thing, are the Enlightenment principles of liberty, etc (and the Enlightenment philosophers were French, Germans, etc, not Russian) ; the German idea of social market economy ; and the heavy addition of American popular culture in European countries' popular cultures since the end of WWII. Where is Russia in all of this? I disagree a whole lot with you on this. French kings unified the nation through brute force and generations of opression. You want the same for europe ? Belgium is not an exemple, it basically exist because it is located between two european powers, France and Germany, much like Switzerland, and as such played the role of tampon while welcoming all the pariah who were fleeing those countries. I don't know where you got those pillars of western european culture. There's no unified european culture, France is pretty far off from the UK and Germany in many aspects, the only thing we really have in common is shared history, litterature, philosophy and art and we have that in common with Russia. On August 26 2016 05:57 LegalLord wrote:On August 26 2016 05:45 Nyxisto wrote:On August 26 2016 05:40 LegalLord wrote:
Russia is definitely more authoritarian than average for European nations. The idea that it's getting worse, or that Putin is some sort of Hitler/Stalin/czar figure, is just opportune fearmongering. It's definitely getting worse though. Just take some indicator like the amount of state owned enterprises. I'm pretty sure Russia is approaching something like 70% or 80% of the economy again. This alone is pretty extreme. The Russian state has greatly expanded the grip it has on all kinds of institutions. Going to have to ask you to be a lot more specific about what you mean. As it has been defined so far your "more authoritarian" claim is pretty nebulous. The Russian government holds a lot of "strategic companies" under its control, and their relative value is pretty high right now if looking at nominal GDP values, but I'm not seeing what you claim to be true. You seem to know quite a lot on Russia Legal, do you study international politics or is it for other reasons ? The Netherlands is a good example of a united country which started out consisting of culturally very different regions. The Dutch republic was a looser federation than thr EU probably and a lot of the regions did not even choose to join.
I don't know much about their history to be clear, but didn't they had common language ? A direct enemy ?
|
On August 26 2016 16:30 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:On August 26 2016 05:51 OtherWorld wrote:On August 26 2016 04:35 WhiteDog wrote: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. Who cares about what it speaks, especially in this time and age? Belgium, though being a very young nation with three languages on its territory, managed to achieve more than most other European countries relatively to their size ; Switzerland has lived in peace and prosperity for centuries despite its diversity ; France was not a clearly defined nation speaking the same language before French kings decided to force a nation into it ; the Roman Empire reigned over an eclectic mix of cultures for centuries. There are dozens of ways of building a nation out of several cultures. There's no need for linguistic unity for a nation to exist, even though that notion is very strange to the heavily centralized and authoritarian French way of seeing the world. I also completely fail to see how Russia is part of our culture. Currently, the three pillars of Western European culture, if that's even a thing, are the Enlightenment principles of liberty, etc (and the Enlightenment philosophers were French, Germans, etc, not Russian) ; the German idea of social market economy ; and the heavy addition of American popular culture in European countries' popular cultures since the end of WWII. Where is Russia in all of this? I disagree a whole lot with you on this. French kings unified the nation through brute force and generations of opression. You want the same for europe ? Belgium is not an exemple, it basically exist because it is located between two european powers, France and Germany, much like Switzerland, and as such played the role of tampon while welcoming all the pariah who were fleeing those countries. I don't know where you got those pillars of western european culture. There's no unified european culture, France is pretty far off from the UK and Germany in many aspects, the only thing we really have in common is shared history, litterature, philosophy and art and we have that in common with Russia. On August 26 2016 05:57 LegalLord wrote:On August 26 2016 05:45 Nyxisto wrote:On August 26 2016 05:40 LegalLord wrote:
Russia is definitely more authoritarian than average for European nations. The idea that it's getting worse, or that Putin is some sort of Hitler/Stalin/czar figure, is just opportune fearmongering. It's definitely getting worse though. Just take some indicator like the amount of state owned enterprises. I'm pretty sure Russia is approaching something like 70% or 80% of the economy again. This alone is pretty extreme. The Russian state has greatly expanded the grip it has on all kinds of institutions. Going to have to ask you to be a lot more specific about what you mean. As it has been defined so far your "more authoritarian" claim is pretty nebulous. The Russian government holds a lot of "strategic companies" under its control, and their relative value is pretty high right now if looking at nominal GDP values, but I'm not seeing what you claim to be true. You seem to know quite a lot on Russia Legal, do you study international politics or is it for other reasons ? The Netherlands is a good example of a united country which started out consisting of culturally very different regions. The Dutch republic was a looser federation than thr EU probably and a lot of the regions did not even choose to join.
The Dutch unification has been cristallised by the wars against imperialisms like Spain and France and the "conquest of the sea". It has been a long and very Deadly processus which can not be compared to EU.
|
On August 26 2016 16:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 15:00 OtherWorld wrote:
Whitedog => well, simple, look at what is shared by Western European countries nowadays. There's nothing Russian in that. Classical Russian culture is modeled after Western European cultures because at that time everything was modeled after W.E. cultures anyways. But modern Russian culture? It's not "not European", but it's not European either.
As for France, no I don't wish to see Germany or France suppress every other European nation, but it's a long-term viable way of doing stuff, apparently. As for Belgium and Switzerland, well, you'll notice that the EU was built as a tampon between the US and the USSR... The thing is the European Union didn't give europe its cultural coherence, nor did its opposition to the USSR (but Russia did participate). The idea of europe predated the two world wars. And maybe one of the problem of the european union is the fact that Russia is completly out of it. At the moment, the european union is one country in the peak of its form, sure of itself (Germany) and who do not move on any topic, one country who is not one anymore (France) and led by dimwit, and the brother that occasionally comes on weekend to stir shit up and go back to its Island the rest of the week, and this unbalanced state of affair is not great to permit a real compromise between the very diverse interests that compose the union.
Don't me wrong, I'm not saying that the EU is doing things right to create a real European culture. But I maintain that (1) it is very much possible to create a united nation out of the current European nations and (2) Russia doesn't necessarily have to be part of it - in fact, I fail to see why it should be part of it.
|
Like, that's the exact stuff I'm talking about. Dostoevsky was a great writer but I care about Russians that still breathe, what they do and how they vote. It's actually kind of condescending to break other nations down to your favorite artists or scientists. We have no spiritual bond to great acient Russians that somehow makes annexing Crimea less wrong or whatever. This is something that's very typical in these discussions. Whenever some Western politician is pressed on European Russian relations the dwelling in history begins because there's not much positive to be said regarding the last twenty years
A lot of russians say they are not europeans for the same reasons as yours because they don't know shit about their cultural history and have a poltiical agenda, the thing you must understand is that you can't erase this cultural and historical just because a lot of people want too and I am not talking about the invasion of Crimea, whatever Russia will do, even bombing the world or anything, she always will part of Europe because all his artists, great thinker and politicians with historical descisions who made what this country is today were part of Europe, we're talking about 1000 years of deep cultural, historical bonds not a bunch of contemporan political conflicts. It almost looks like you want to make it a war of civilisation. In the same order of idea, I could say that now they have a totally different poltiical system and are in conflicts, South Korea and North Korea has nothing in common, same for East and West Germany. I know this exemple is about nations a not a very large scaling cultural homogeneity but this is basicaly your thinking : in conflict politically and even in a total ideological contrast = no more part of the cultural history.
That's like the one above who implies Hitler was not part of Europe, how easy it is to think like this and dangerous too because it just ignored some important cultural causes and developement of ideas during the previous century, the nazis come from earth and even better : Europe, same for the russians. This is not a political opinion which depends of a context but a fact.
I have the strange impression I'm talking about jews with some ignorants fascists, I mean, this is a hardcore revisionnism,..
Btw the "three pillars" evoked by Otherworld are laughables because it was some strong ideas of a large part of the intellectual elite of the 18th, the century of birth of a very young nation which will dominate the world: USA and yeah, the pillars of usa are fundamentably liberals (even if it can be nuanced) but I can assure you, Europe was existing before America and the modern notion of capitalism.
|
^social market economy is born out of post-WWII Germany and the result of the pre-WWII struggle between capitalism and socialism, a broad interpretation of Enlightenment principles can be seen in all Western European countries, and nowadays in Europe there are more people who go to a McDonalds every week than people who go to the mass every week.
But yeah, clearly Europe has nothing to do with this, and today, people's lives are very much influenced by Russian artists from 1000 years ago. Clearly.
|
On August 26 2016 17:19 OtherWorld wrote:
^social market economy is born out of post-WWII Germany and the result of the pre-WWII struggle between capitalism and socialism, a broad interpretation of Enlightenment principles can be seen in all Western European countries, and nowadays in Europe there are more people who go to a McDonalds every week than people who go to the mass every week.
But yeah, clearly Europe has nothing to do with this, and today, people's lives are very much influenced by Russian artists from 1000 years ago. Clearly.
You're a liberal, I don't ask you to understand that Europe is a bit more than Mc Donald. If you think that your "three pillars" are a ex nihilo creation who is the responsible of the cultural structuration of Europe, good for you, I just suggest you to attend any philosophic or historical lessons.
Or you're open a book with the name of any thinkers pre 19th century.
|
Well, thanks for your lessons, but meanwhile I've still to hear a sensible explanation of why exactly is Russia so essential to Europe. No, just having well-known writers and composers don't cut it, or else you'd have to acknowledge that America is as essential to Europe as Russia.
|
On August 26 2016 16:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 16:30 RvB wrote:On August 26 2016 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:On August 26 2016 05:51 OtherWorld wrote:On August 26 2016 04:35 WhiteDog wrote: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. Who cares about what it speaks, especially in this time and age? Belgium, though being a very young nation with three languages on its territory, managed to achieve more than most other European countries relatively to their size ; Switzerland has lived in peace and prosperity for centuries despite its diversity ; France was not a clearly defined nation speaking the same language before French kings decided to force a nation into it ; the Roman Empire reigned over an eclectic mix of cultures for centuries. There are dozens of ways of building a nation out of several cultures. There's no need for linguistic unity for a nation to exist, even though that notion is very strange to the heavily centralized and authoritarian French way of seeing the world. I also completely fail to see how Russia is part of our culture. Currently, the three pillars of Western European culture, if that's even a thing, are the Enlightenment principles of liberty, etc (and the Enlightenment philosophers were French, Germans, etc, not Russian) ; the German idea of social market economy ; and the heavy addition of American popular culture in European countries' popular cultures since the end of WWII. Where is Russia in all of this? I disagree a whole lot with you on this. French kings unified the nation through brute force and generations of opression. You want the same for europe ? Belgium is not an exemple, it basically exist because it is located between two european powers, France and Germany, much like Switzerland, and as such played the role of tampon while welcoming all the pariah who were fleeing those countries. I don't know where you got those pillars of western european culture. There's no unified european culture, France is pretty far off from the UK and Germany in many aspects, the only thing we really have in common is shared history, litterature, philosophy and art and we have that in common with Russia. On August 26 2016 05:57 LegalLord wrote:On August 26 2016 05:45 Nyxisto wrote:On August 26 2016 05:40 LegalLord wrote:
Russia is definitely more authoritarian than average for European nations. The idea that it's getting worse, or that Putin is some sort of Hitler/Stalin/czar figure, is just opportune fearmongering. It's definitely getting worse though. Just take some indicator like the amount of state owned enterprises. I'm pretty sure Russia is approaching something like 70% or 80% of the economy again. This alone is pretty extreme. The Russian state has greatly expanded the grip it has on all kinds of institutions. Going to have to ask you to be a lot more specific about what you mean. As it has been defined so far your "more authoritarian" claim is pretty nebulous. The Russian government holds a lot of "strategic companies" under its control, and their relative value is pretty high right now if looking at nominal GDP values, but I'm not seeing what you claim to be true. You seem to know quite a lot on Russia Legal, do you study international politics or is it for other reasons ? The Netherlands is a good example of a united country which started out consisting of culturally very different regions. The Dutch republic was a looser federation than thr EU probably and a lot of the regions did not even choose to join. I don't know much about their history to be clear, but didn't they had common language ? A direct enemy ?
Common language yes but very different countries. A bit like the greek city states (though not a perfect comparison of course). They were united under the Burgundians and later the Spanish but every state had it's own laws, privileges etc. The Dutch revolt was in large part against the centralisation efforts of both the Burgundians and the Spanish. The Dutch revolt started in what we call Belgium today and the fact that we got a nice north / south divide between Belgium and The Netherlands is more coincidence than anything.
Anyway the Dutch Republic ended up being a very loose confederation dominated by Holland. It had a common defense policy and that's what mostly bound them together. Our golden age is much more a tale of Holland than the whole Republic. Only after the French occupation in the revolution did we become a kingdom.
On August 26 2016 16:49 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 16:30 RvB wrote:On August 26 2016 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:On August 26 2016 05:51 OtherWorld wrote:On August 26 2016 04:35 WhiteDog wrote: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. Who cares about what it speaks, especially in this time and age? Belgium, though being a very young nation with three languages on its territory, managed to achieve more than most other European countries relatively to their size ; Switzerland has lived in peace and prosperity for centuries despite its diversity ; France was not a clearly defined nation speaking the same language before French kings decided to force a nation into it ; the Roman Empire reigned over an eclectic mix of cultures for centuries. There are dozens of ways of building a nation out of several cultures. There's no need for linguistic unity for a nation to exist, even though that notion is very strange to the heavily centralized and authoritarian French way of seeing the world. I also completely fail to see how Russia is part of our culture. Currently, the three pillars of Western European culture, if that's even a thing, are the Enlightenment principles of liberty, etc (and the Enlightenment philosophers were French, Germans, etc, not Russian) ; the German idea of social market economy ; and the heavy addition of American popular culture in European countries' popular cultures since the end of WWII. Where is Russia in all of this? I disagree a whole lot with you on this. French kings unified the nation through brute force and generations of opression. You want the same for europe ? Belgium is not an exemple, it basically exist because it is located between two european powers, France and Germany, much like Switzerland, and as such played the role of tampon while welcoming all the pariah who were fleeing those countries. I don't know where you got those pillars of western european culture. There's no unified european culture, France is pretty far off from the UK and Germany in many aspects, the only thing we really have in common is shared history, litterature, philosophy and art and we have that in common with Russia. On August 26 2016 05:57 LegalLord wrote:On August 26 2016 05:45 Nyxisto wrote:On August 26 2016 05:40 LegalLord wrote:
Russia is definitely more authoritarian than average for European nations. The idea that it's getting worse, or that Putin is some sort of Hitler/Stalin/czar figure, is just opportune fearmongering. It's definitely getting worse though. Just take some indicator like the amount of state owned enterprises. I'm pretty sure Russia is approaching something like 70% or 80% of the economy again. This alone is pretty extreme. The Russian state has greatly expanded the grip it has on all kinds of institutions. Going to have to ask you to be a lot more specific about what you mean. As it has been defined so far your "more authoritarian" claim is pretty nebulous. The Russian government holds a lot of "strategic companies" under its control, and their relative value is pretty high right now if looking at nominal GDP values, but I'm not seeing what you claim to be true. You seem to know quite a lot on Russia Legal, do you study international politics or is it for other reasons ? The Netherlands is a good example of a united country which started out consisting of culturally very different regions. The Dutch republic was a looser federation than thr EU probably and a lot of the regions did not even choose to join. The Dutch unification has been cristallised by the wars against imperialisms like Spain and France and the "conquest of the sea". It has been a long and very Deadly processus which can not be compared to EU.
Wars against imperialism? Not at all. The Dutch revolt did not even start out as an independence war and the French revolutionary armies were welcomed in by the patriotten. The patriotten would've kicked out the Oranjes if it weren't for the Prussian intervention anyway.
|
On August 26 2016 17:01 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 16:28 WhiteDog wrote:On August 26 2016 15:00 OtherWorld wrote:
Whitedog => well, simple, look at what is shared by Western European countries nowadays. There's nothing Russian in that. Classical Russian culture is modeled after Western European cultures because at that time everything was modeled after W.E. cultures anyways. But modern Russian culture? It's not "not European", but it's not European either.
As for France, no I don't wish to see Germany or France suppress every other European nation, but it's a long-term viable way of doing stuff, apparently. As for Belgium and Switzerland, well, you'll notice that the EU was built as a tampon between the US and the USSR... The thing is the European Union didn't give europe its cultural coherence, nor did its opposition to the USSR (but Russia did participate). The idea of europe predated the two world wars. And maybe one of the problem of the european union is the fact that Russia is completly out of it. At the moment, the european union is one country in the peak of its form, sure of itself (Germany) and who do not move on any topic, one country who is not one anymore (France) and led by dimwit, and the brother that occasionally comes on weekend to stir shit up and go back to its Island the rest of the week, and this unbalanced state of affair is not great to permit a real compromise between the very diverse interests that compose the union. Don't me wrong, I'm not saying that the EU is doing things right to create a real European culture. But I maintain that (1) it is very much possible to create a united nation out of the current European nations and (2) Russia doesn't necessarily have to be part of it - in fact, I fail to see why it should be part of it.
Equilibrium of powers is one reason maybe ; Europe have never been that great under one dominant nation, it's always the shit everywhere. They also somewhat proposed a different model that was beneficial to our institutions.
Thanks for the infos RvB.
social market economy is born out of post-WWII Germany
What do you mean by social market economy ?
|
On August 26 2016 17:59 OtherWorld wrote:
Well, thanks for your lessons, but meanwhile I've still to hear a sensible explanation of why exactly is Russia so essential to Europe. No, just having well-known writers and composers don't cut it, or else you'd have to acknowledge that America is as essential to Europe as Russia.
You're welcome, and do you want to hear a very good joke? The most influencal men of Europe are most likely Aristotles, Plato and Jesus, think about that.
Anyway, I was not talking this time about the current political context like Whitedog, the purpose of my last posts was pointing the fact that:
_ Russia is part of Europe
_ Europe as a cultural ensemble is way more anterior as you might think.
As you talk about the current political context, I would say that a nation like France must find a balance between these two imperialisms, I largely prefer the way Chirac handled foreign affairs than Hollande for exemple.
For the link that America has with Europe, well, it is a former GB colony with a strong link with anglo saxon culture which is part of Europe, but as it is way younger and not geographically reliated, so we used the term "occidental" which indeed seems to have the three pillars you mentionned and so, does not really included Russia or the central Europe nations during the iron curtain but occidental does not totally refer to all the Europe, I think this notion is legit but can be distorded.
|
On August 26 2016 17:59 OtherWorld wrote:
Well, thanks for your lessons, but meanwhile I've still to hear a sensible explanation of why exactly is Russia so essential to Europe. No, just having well-known writers and composers don't cut it, or else you'd have to acknowledge that America is as essential to Europe as Russia.
Uhm..
Huge culture influence on europe as a whole and especially eastern europe?
History with europe that goes back over a thousand years?
You might also ask why Italy, Spain or whatever Country is important to europe...
Russia is a giant part of european history.
|
On August 26 2016 17:01 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 16:28 WhiteDog wrote:On August 26 2016 15:00 OtherWorld wrote:
Whitedog => well, simple, look at what is shared by Western European countries nowadays. There's nothing Russian in that. Classical Russian culture is modeled after Western European cultures because at that time everything was modeled after W.E. cultures anyways. But modern Russian culture? It's not "not European", but it's not European either.
As for France, no I don't wish to see Germany or France suppress every other European nation, but it's a long-term viable way of doing stuff, apparently. As for Belgium and Switzerland, well, you'll notice that the EU was built as a tampon between the US and the USSR... The thing is the European Union didn't give europe its cultural coherence, nor did its opposition to the USSR (but Russia did participate). The idea of europe predated the two world wars. And maybe one of the problem of the european union is the fact that Russia is completly out of it. At the moment, the european union is one country in the peak of its form, sure of itself (Germany) and who do not move on any topic, one country who is not one anymore (France) and led by dimwit, and the brother that occasionally comes on weekend to stir shit up and go back to its Island the rest of the week, and this unbalanced state of affair is not great to permit a real compromise between the very diverse interests that compose the union. Don't me wrong, I'm not saying that the EU is doing things right to create a real European culture. But I maintain that (1) it is very much possible to create a united nation out of the current European nations and (2) Russia doesn't necessarily have to be part of it - in fact, I fail to see why it should be part of it.
Not specifically replying to you, but using you as a hook for my opinion:
I find terms like "European culture" a bit overrated.
I'm German, I live in the far north of Germany. I most certainly don't have the same culture as the Bavarians in the far south of Germany, nor the same culture as the people in the east or west of Germany. We're still one country, even though the only thing we really share is a language - arguably not even that, because I have a lot of trouble understanding what people from Saxony (east Germany) or Bavaria are saying, they pretty much have their own language that sort of resembles actual German, but doesn't really. A country doesn't need to have a single culture to be united, I'd actually say that no non-tiny country actually *has* a single culture.
The main problem with a united Europe is not culture. Every region will still have it's own culture and cultures always change over time anyways. The main problem is something Germany has experience with: Uniting countries of different economical strength. West- and east Germany are still significantly apart in terms of economy. The unification was over 25 years ago (has it really been that long? I'm old...) and it's nowhere near done. Before you can unite Europe, you have to get all economies up to speed, and that can take centuries, judging by how slow the progress in eastern Germany is.
Personally, I'm in favor of a united Europe, but I don't think it's viable in my lifetime without an economic revolution in the weaker parts of the EU.
|
Wars against imperialism? Not at all. The Dutch revolt did not even start out as an independence war and the French revolutionary armies were welcomed in by the patriotten. The patriotten would've kicked out the Oranjes if it weren't for the Prussian intervention anyway.
But it became and I didn't talk about the french revolutionary armies but the Louis XIV one's which has provoked a lot of fear and some kind of national union. At least, that what I understood about the Simon Schama's work I read.
|
On August 26 2016 18:17 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 17:01 OtherWorld wrote:On August 26 2016 16:28 WhiteDog wrote:On August 26 2016 15:00 OtherWorld wrote:
Whitedog => well, simple, look at what is shared by Western European countries nowadays. There's nothing Russian in that. Classical Russian culture is modeled after Western European cultures because at that time everything was modeled after W.E. cultures anyways. But modern Russian culture? It's not "not European", but it's not European either.
As for France, no I don't wish to see Germany or France suppress every other European nation, but it's a long-term viable way of doing stuff, apparently. As for Belgium and Switzerland, well, you'll notice that the EU was built as a tampon between the US and the USSR... The thing is the European Union didn't give europe its cultural coherence, nor did its opposition to the USSR (but Russia did participate). The idea of europe predated the two world wars. And maybe one of the problem of the european union is the fact that Russia is completly out of it. At the moment, the european union is one country in the peak of its form, sure of itself (Germany) and who do not move on any topic, one country who is not one anymore (France) and led by dimwit, and the brother that occasionally comes on weekend to stir shit up and go back to its Island the rest of the week, and this unbalanced state of affair is not great to permit a real compromise between the very diverse interests that compose the union. Don't me wrong, I'm not saying that the EU is doing things right to create a real European culture. But I maintain that (1) it is very much possible to create a united nation out of the current European nations and (2) Russia doesn't necessarily have to be part of it - in fact, I fail to see why it should be part of it. Not specifically replying to you, but using you as a hook for my opinion: I find terms like "European culture" a bit overrated. I'm German, I live in the far north of Germany. I most certainly don't have the same culture as the Bavarians in the far south of Germany, nor the same culture as the people in the east or west of Germany. We're still one country, even though the only thing we really share is a language - arguably not even that, because I have a lot of trouble understanding what people from Saxony (east Germany) or Bavaria are saying, they pretty much have their own language that sort of resembles actual German, but doesn't really. A country doesn't need to have a single culture to be united, I'd actually say that no non-tiny country actually *has* a single culture. The main problem with a united Europe is not culture. Every region will still have it's own culture and cultures always change over time anyways. The main problem is something Germany has experience with: Uniting countries of different economical strength. West- and east Germany are still significantly apart in terms of economy. The unification was over 25 years ago (has it really been that long? I'm old...) and it's nowhere near done. Before you can unite Europe, you have to get all economies up to speed, and that can take centuries, judging by how slow the progress in eastern Germany is. Personally, I'm in favor of a united Europe, but I don't think it's viable in my lifetime without an economic revolution in the weaker parts of the EU.
Yeah but the reunificated was possible and desired because west and east germany were viewed as two piece of the same entity. Even if each region have its own culture, there is a sense of common identity, a common language, created throughout history and specifically through a set of institutions.
Imo the political aspect supercede the economic problem : in the end what you absolutly need is to permit money to go from the richest states to the poorest, and to permit that you need some emotional ties that makes the richest accept losing some of their wealth in favor of the poorest : this is the idea of nation, or "culture" - even if, of course, it's not a monolithic thing.
Today the German don't want to give massive amount of money to the Greeks because they're not their peers, they're different and identified as such.
|
On August 26 2016 18:11 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 17:01 OtherWorld wrote:On August 26 2016 16:28 WhiteDog wrote:On August 26 2016 15:00 OtherWorld wrote:
Whitedog => well, simple, look at what is shared by Western European countries nowadays. There's nothing Russian in that. Classical Russian culture is modeled after Western European cultures because at that time everything was modeled after W.E. cultures anyways. But modern Russian culture? It's not "not European", but it's not European either.
As for France, no I don't wish to see Germany or France suppress every other European nation, but it's a long-term viable way of doing stuff, apparently. As for Belgium and Switzerland, well, you'll notice that the EU was built as a tampon between the US and the USSR... The thing is the European Union didn't give europe its cultural coherence, nor did its opposition to the USSR (but Russia did participate). The idea of europe predated the two world wars. And maybe one of the problem of the european union is the fact that Russia is completly out of it. At the moment, the european union is one country in the peak of its form, sure of itself (Germany) and who do not move on any topic, one country who is not one anymore (France) and led by dimwit, and the brother that occasionally comes on weekend to stir shit up and go back to its Island the rest of the week, and this unbalanced state of affair is not great to permit a real compromise between the very diverse interests that compose the union. Don't me wrong, I'm not saying that the EU is doing things right to create a real European culture. But I maintain that (1) it is very much possible to create a united nation out of the current European nations and (2) Russia doesn't necessarily have to be part of it - in fact, I fail to see why it should be part of it. Equilibrium of powers is one reason maybe ; Europe have never been that great under one dominant nation, it's always the shit everywhere. They also somewhat proposed a different model that was beneficial to our institutions. Thanks for the infos RvB. What do you mean by social market economy ?
Free market combined with relatively heavy state welfare and regulations. Basically the most European thing possible.
As for Russia, equilibrium of powers may be a valid reason indeed. Though I'm not sure if it would result in an actual equilibrium, and not in Russia simply taking Germany's role as the leading European nation.
On August 26 2016 18:16 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 17:59 OtherWorld wrote:
Well, thanks for your lessons, but meanwhile I've still to hear a sensible explanation of why exactly is Russia so essential to Europe. No, just having well-known writers and composers don't cut it, or else you'd have to acknowledge that America is as essential to Europe as Russia. Uhm.. Huge culture influence on europe as a whole and especially eastern europe? History with europe that goes back over a thousand years? You might also ask why Italy, Spain or whatever Country is important to europe... Russia is a giant part of european history.
Plenty of non-European countries have history with Europe that goes back to over a thousands years. By that reasoning North African countries should be European too, because of the Ummayads...
As for the culture influence, I've still to hear concrete and meaningful examples. I'm talking about Western Europe btw, not Eastern Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
