|
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 April 10 2017 01:08 Unentschieden wrote:
How come the EU apparently simply follows the money yet also compromised the UKs self determination? If being merely 2nd behind Germany was bad enough what other bloc does the UK intend to dominate to its satisfaction?
Easy, you kick out all the Polish people.
How is this not obvious?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The EU has to reconcile the economic reality that giving Britain a good deal would be better for the economy and the political reality that if they don't start extorting the EU-wide Leavers by showing that they will burn alive anyone who chooses to leave, that the sorry excuse that is the EU will fall apart overnight. The political reality dominates.
The solution to this conundrum? More Europe! So much Europe that you will positively drown in it!
|
On April 10 2017 00:42 bardtown wrote:
What you're talking about is the EU 'committing Sudoku'. You're just not understanding the situation in sufficient depth to see that. If the poor, subsidised countries consistently outvote the wealthy contributors, discontentment will only grow. Sounds like a recipe for Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands to seriously consider their positions. I don't share your opinion though. The south and the east will most likely toe the German line to keep their German funding.
France-Italy-Spain have been quite unified in the past years and Germany is not the sole leader of the EU. If it were, the UK would not have left the Union because the English and German conservatives can put up quite well with one anothers positions. You are simply talking out of your ass if you believe everyone will flock to German interests, they didn't do that with either of the two biggest economies, Germany and the UK, and they won't do it with one of them leaving.
Northern conservatives are pushing for a multi-speed Europe for that exact reason, they know that their positions might not have much weight anymore after Brexit.
Though this is obviously hugely dependent on the next elections in France and Germany. Fillion and Macron will probably both be more Northern oriented, while a Schulz win in Germany may have them taking a more moderate stance on some Southern issues.
No clue when Italy is going to vote, but that will matter a lot too.
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On April 09 2017 19:19 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 18:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Face it, Europe has a collective sense of Stockholm Syndrome with regards to the US. Whenever the US elects an aggressive idiot they mostly just quietly take it and try their best not to start a commotion, but express their deepest most jubilant excitement whenever the US does something mildly favorable towards them. If Trump won't change that nothing will. Aaaaaaaand this is why EU integration is the way forward. We really have a choice between being a bunch of small/medium size nations squizzed between a big brother that dwarf every single one of us and a nostalgic former superpower with delusionnal imperial dreams, or being arguably the most powerful federation on earth, able to deal equally with the States and build a partnership with Russia based on the assumption that its regime doesn't mess with us. As long as Western Europe doesn't unite, its influence will always be completely overshadowed by the US. They have the economic influence, the army, a unified government (well, these days that ain't a great asset) while we are a conglomerate of more or less convergent interests that struggle to do anything together. The world has become too small for countries of 5-70 million people to really compete with the US, Russia, China and India. So as long as we don't sort that shit and get a functional supranational government, we are the bitches of the least scary superpower, and that is the US, which, despite all their flaws are a great country compared to a kleptocratic Russia or a far away ruthless dictatorship like China. Your argument is way too reasonable and you give way too much respect to what the enemies of Europe are saying. It is not what they are meaning. The unspoken questions are: - How is a strong souvereign Europe better for Russia or the USA than one that you can enforce a certain hegemony over? - Why would a radical nationalist care about material questions? There is nothing in this deal for them, which is why they will always be against this idea for a long, long time. This is what the friends of Europe would actually have to communicate. The USA and Russia being united in their hatred for Europe is actually a very good sign, it means we are already standing up to their interests.
I am probably in minority in my own country but I'm a big believer that strong and independent united Europe would be really beneficial for Russia. I think that once Russia stops being seen as "communist totalitarian oppressor that would conquer us the second the US stops protecting us" Europe will find that it has a lot of common interests with us.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
A united Europe that does not insist on being an alliance against Russia may be reasonably beneficial for Russia, yes. A united Europe isn't good for itself, though, so good riddance. It's not the idea of uniting Europe that people oppose but the reality on the ground of what the EU actually is: an ineffective attempt to unite by geography under the guise of ideological closeness. Based on the reality that actually exists, it would be better for that pitiful excuse of a union to fall apart, almost irrespective of what takes its place (since some degree of European cooperation is likely in the long run).
|
On April 10 2017 01:39 Ingvar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 19:19 Big J wrote:On April 09 2017 18:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Face it, Europe has a collective sense of Stockholm Syndrome with regards to the US. Whenever the US elects an aggressive idiot they mostly just quietly take it and try their best not to start a commotion, but express their deepest most jubilant excitement whenever the US does something mildly favorable towards them. If Trump won't change that nothing will. Aaaaaaaand this is why EU integration is the way forward. We really have a choice between being a bunch of small/medium size nations squizzed between a big brother that dwarf every single one of us and a nostalgic former superpower with delusionnal imperial dreams, or being arguably the most powerful federation on earth, able to deal equally with the States and build a partnership with Russia based on the assumption that its regime doesn't mess with us. As long as Western Europe doesn't unite, its influence will always be completely overshadowed by the US. They have the economic influence, the army, a unified government (well, these days that ain't a great asset) while we are a conglomerate of more or less convergent interests that struggle to do anything together. The world has become too small for countries of 5-70 million people to really compete with the US, Russia, China and India. So as long as we don't sort that shit and get a functional supranational government, we are the bitches of the least scary superpower, and that is the US, which, despite all their flaws are a great country compared to a kleptocratic Russia or a far away ruthless dictatorship like China. Your argument is way too reasonable and you give way too much respect to what the enemies of Europe are saying. It is not what they are meaning. The unspoken questions are: - How is a strong souvereign Europe better for Russia or the USA than one that you can enforce a certain hegemony over? - Why would a radical nationalist care about material questions? There is nothing in this deal for them, which is why they will always be against this idea for a long, long time. This is what the friends of Europe would actually have to communicate. The USA and Russia being united in their hatred for Europe is actually a very good sign, it means we are already standing up to their interests. I am probably in minority in my own country but I'm a big believer that strong and independent united Europe would be really beneficial for Russia. I think that once Russia stops being seen as "communist totalitarian oppressor that would conquer us the second the US stops protecting us" Europe will find that it has a lot of common interests with us.
Russia stops being a 'communist totalitarian oppressor who would conquer us if given the chance' when it stops being a totalitarian regime that likes to invade its neighbours.
The relative power of the EU has little(nothing) to do with the EU's aversion to Russia.
|
Everything that doesn't oppose the russian bulshit is great for Russia, I agree.
I don't agree that it's better to destroy something, rather than reforming it.
Yeah,current EU falling appart will be great for Russia, but I don't think that EU citizens are really concerned with Russia's best interest... At least the ones that are not payed by Russia.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In the troubles of the EU, everyone only learns the lessons they want to learn.
Is the EU failing because there's not enough Europe or because it's gone too far? Depends on your ideology. Thankfully there are few fools left who think that the status quo is sustainable (though plenty such idiots existed before 23 June 2016) but ideology evidently hasn't changed one bit.
|
On April 10 2017 01:39 Ingvar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 19:19 Big J wrote:On April 09 2017 18:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Face it, Europe has a collective sense of Stockholm Syndrome with regards to the US. Whenever the US elects an aggressive idiot they mostly just quietly take it and try their best not to start a commotion, but express their deepest most jubilant excitement whenever the US does something mildly favorable towards them. If Trump won't change that nothing will. Aaaaaaaand this is why EU integration is the way forward. We really have a choice between being a bunch of small/medium size nations squizzed between a big brother that dwarf every single one of us and a nostalgic former superpower with delusionnal imperial dreams, or being arguably the most powerful federation on earth, able to deal equally with the States and build a partnership with Russia based on the assumption that its regime doesn't mess with us. As long as Western Europe doesn't unite, its influence will always be completely overshadowed by the US. They have the economic influence, the army, a unified government (well, these days that ain't a great asset) while we are a conglomerate of more or less convergent interests that struggle to do anything together. The world has become too small for countries of 5-70 million people to really compete with the US, Russia, China and India. So as long as we don't sort that shit and get a functional supranational government, we are the bitches of the least scary superpower, and that is the US, which, despite all their flaws are a great country compared to a kleptocratic Russia or a far away ruthless dictatorship like China. Your argument is way too reasonable and you give way too much respect to what the enemies of Europe are saying. It is not what they are meaning. The unspoken questions are: - How is a strong souvereign Europe better for Russia or the USA than one that you can enforce a certain hegemony over? - Why would a radical nationalist care about material questions? There is nothing in this deal for them, which is why they will always be against this idea for a long, long time. This is what the friends of Europe would actually have to communicate. The USA and Russia being united in their hatred for Europe is actually a very good sign, it means we are already standing up to their interests. I am probably in minority in my own country but I'm a big believer that strong and independent united Europe would be really beneficial for Russia. I think that once Russia stops being seen as "communist totalitarian oppressor that would conquer us the second the US stops protecting us" Europe will find that it has a lot of common interests with us.
I hope so. It's a pretty shitty situation at the moment. The problem as always is that politicians would lose face if they changed their politics. One of the reasons why democratic change is such an important political principle. If you always have the same old people with the same old networks in charge, you always get the same old bullshit. One of the reasons why democracy should always be the first goal in every political structure, regardless of whether you are left or right. But that obviously always goes against those who are in power right now.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In a lot of countries, stoking ethnic tensions with regards to Russia is a highly effective way to be a shitty leader without ever having to own up to it. What does it matter if you're a corrupt ineffective filth of a government if your major opponent is a secret Russian sympathizer anyways?
And in the West, it seems like a tendency that repeats itself in every country that even with democracy, all the same old networks are still in charge.
|
On April 10 2017 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2017 01:39 Ingvar wrote:On April 09 2017 19:19 Big J wrote:On April 09 2017 18:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Face it, Europe has a collective sense of Stockholm Syndrome with regards to the US. Whenever the US elects an aggressive idiot they mostly just quietly take it and try their best not to start a commotion, but express their deepest most jubilant excitement whenever the US does something mildly favorable towards them. If Trump won't change that nothing will. Aaaaaaaand this is why EU integration is the way forward. We really have a choice between being a bunch of small/medium size nations squizzed between a big brother that dwarf every single one of us and a nostalgic former superpower with delusionnal imperial dreams, or being arguably the most powerful federation on earth, able to deal equally with the States and build a partnership with Russia based on the assumption that its regime doesn't mess with us. As long as Western Europe doesn't unite, its influence will always be completely overshadowed by the US. They have the economic influence, the army, a unified government (well, these days that ain't a great asset) while we are a conglomerate of more or less convergent interests that struggle to do anything together. The world has become too small for countries of 5-70 million people to really compete with the US, Russia, China and India. So as long as we don't sort that shit and get a functional supranational government, we are the bitches of the least scary superpower, and that is the US, which, despite all their flaws are a great country compared to a kleptocratic Russia or a far away ruthless dictatorship like China. Your argument is way too reasonable and you give way too much respect to what the enemies of Europe are saying. It is not what they are meaning. The unspoken questions are: - How is a strong souvereign Europe better for Russia or the USA than one that you can enforce a certain hegemony over? - Why would a radical nationalist care about material questions? There is nothing in this deal for them, which is why they will always be against this idea for a long, long time. This is what the friends of Europe would actually have to communicate. The USA and Russia being united in their hatred for Europe is actually a very good sign, it means we are already standing up to their interests. I am probably in minority in my own country but I'm a big believer that strong and independent united Europe would be really beneficial for Russia. I think that once Russia stops being seen as "communist totalitarian oppressor that would conquer us the second the US stops protecting us" Europe will find that it has a lot of common interests with us. Russia stops being a 'communist totalitarian oppressor who would conquer us if given the chance' when it stops being a totalitarian regime that likes to invade its neighbours. The relative power of the EU has little(nothing) to do with the EU's aversion to Russia.
I'd disagree. The relative power of the EU may not have a lot to do with the aversion to Russia but the EUs power has something to do with how much we are in line with the US opinion on a lot of things, which Russia does not want.
I still believe that most people in the EU basicly want us to be a big Switzerland that tries to stay neutral if you look at reactions to interventions in the middle east etc. Sure, we'd still hate them on stuff like the Ukraine, human rights etc but I do believe it to be beneficial for the Russians as well.
Or at least the situation would be better for them than a splintered Europe that acts as the US' lapdog (<--- is that an expression in english as well?  )
|
On April 10 2017 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2017 01:39 Ingvar wrote:On April 09 2017 19:19 Big J wrote:On April 09 2017 18:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Face it, Europe has a collective sense of Stockholm Syndrome with regards to the US. Whenever the US elects an aggressive idiot they mostly just quietly take it and try their best not to start a commotion, but express their deepest most jubilant excitement whenever the US does something mildly favorable towards them. If Trump won't change that nothing will. Aaaaaaaand this is why EU integration is the way forward. We really have a choice between being a bunch of small/medium size nations squizzed between a big brother that dwarf every single one of us and a nostalgic former superpower with delusionnal imperial dreams, or being arguably the most powerful federation on earth, able to deal equally with the States and build a partnership with Russia based on the assumption that its regime doesn't mess with us. As long as Western Europe doesn't unite, its influence will always be completely overshadowed by the US. They have the economic influence, the army, a unified government (well, these days that ain't a great asset) while we are a conglomerate of more or less convergent interests that struggle to do anything together. The world has become too small for countries of 5-70 million people to really compete with the US, Russia, China and India. So as long as we don't sort that shit and get a functional supranational government, we are the bitches of the least scary superpower, and that is the US, which, despite all their flaws are a great country compared to a kleptocratic Russia or a far away ruthless dictatorship like China. Your argument is way too reasonable and you give way too much respect to what the enemies of Europe are saying. It is not what they are meaning. The unspoken questions are: - How is a strong souvereign Europe better for Russia or the USA than one that you can enforce a certain hegemony over? - Why would a radical nationalist care about material questions? There is nothing in this deal for them, which is why they will always be against this idea for a long, long time. This is what the friends of Europe would actually have to communicate. The USA and Russia being united in their hatred for Europe is actually a very good sign, it means we are already standing up to their interests. I am probably in minority in my own country but I'm a big believer that strong and independent united Europe would be really beneficial for Russia. I think that once Russia stops being seen as "communist totalitarian oppressor that would conquer us the second the US stops protecting us" Europe will find that it has a lot of common interests with us. Russia stops being a 'communist totalitarian oppressor who would conquer us if given the chance' when it stops being a totalitarian regime that likes to invade its neighbours. The relative power of the EU has little(nothing) to do with the EU's aversion to Russia.
Meanwhile, the US can invade countries halfway across the world under false pretences all it likes! They're our friend! And don't bother responding with "classic whataboutism" without taking the last paragraph of this post into account.
Besides, regarding Ukraine and Donbass, is the following video all blatant Russian lies and propaganda? Watch for about 7-8 minutes, if you dare to subject yourself to the brainwashing. Seems to me like Ukraine was cracking down on protests in a fashion not entirely unlike what Assad did in Syria and things slowly kept escalating on both sides.
+ Show Spoiler +
At worst, I think, some of what is in this video is the same as the Daily Show interviewing the most extreme and stupid of Trump supporters, thereby allowing us to view them collectively as 'deplorables'. Or FoxNews highlighting the stupidest of the liberals in opposition to their conservative perspective. But just as not all Trump supporters are deplorables, it's not quite as clear cut in Ukraine. It's not just "Russia is invading a sovereign nation".
Tell me, did you vote to give Ukraine EU association status, or were you with the majority of the Dutch who voted against it? Why do you think that was? Half of the people in the Netherlands are xenophobic racists mind-controlled by Putin?
Just as there were legitimate reasons to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq, there are legitimate reasons for the ethnic Russians living in Donbass to fight for their rights - and by extension Russia has at least some legitimate reason to support them. That doesn't make either of these things good by any stretch of the imagination, because they both involve war and innocent people tend to get slaughtered in war. I don't think any of this is quite as simple as calling Russia a 'communist totalitarian oppressor that invades other countries' though.
|
On April 10 2017 02:29 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of countries, stoking ethnic tensions with regards to Russia is a highly effective way to be a shitty leader without ever having to own up to it. What does it matter if you're a corrupt ineffective filth of a government if your major opponent is a secret Russian sympathizer anyways?
And in the West, it seems like a tendency that repeats itself in every country that even with democracy, all the same old networks are still in charge.
Yeah, and I am also not a huge fan of most "democratic" systems around. Most Western systems put a huge effort into making it hard to vote for anyone diverging from the mainstream parties and the mainstream parties themselves are hardly democratic. Your comment with the "major opponent" already shows the system flaw. There shouldn't be a major opponent, there should be a proportional representation of people's opinions and beliefs.
Democracy should be much more than a majority government elected every half decade, sadly it isn't and the tendencies go even further the other way.
|
On April 10 2017 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
A united Europe that does not insist on being an alliance against Russia may be reasonably beneficial for Russia, yes. A united Europe isn't good for itself, though, so good riddance. It's not the idea of uniting Europe that people oppose but the reality on the ground of what the EU actually is: an ineffective attempt to unite by geography under the guise of ideological closeness. Based on the reality that actually exists, it would be better for that pitiful excuse of a union to fall apart, almost irrespective of what takes its place (since some degree of European cooperation is likely in the long run).
Now thats BS. Regardless of what your opinion on the EUs flaws are it´s idiotic to think it´s the worst possible situation. There were 2 world wars and the most important goal of the institution is to prevent the next.
Yeah getting the european nations to get along and move towards a common direction is difficult - thats why the EU exists.
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On April 10 2017 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2017 01:39 Ingvar wrote:On April 09 2017 19:19 Big J wrote:On April 09 2017 18:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Face it, Europe has a collective sense of Stockholm Syndrome with regards to the US. Whenever the US elects an aggressive idiot they mostly just quietly take it and try their best not to start a commotion, but express their deepest most jubilant excitement whenever the US does something mildly favorable towards them. If Trump won't change that nothing will. Aaaaaaaand this is why EU integration is the way forward. We really have a choice between being a bunch of small/medium size nations squizzed between a big brother that dwarf every single one of us and a nostalgic former superpower with delusionnal imperial dreams, or being arguably the most powerful federation on earth, able to deal equally with the States and build a partnership with Russia based on the assumption that its regime doesn't mess with us. As long as Western Europe doesn't unite, its influence will always be completely overshadowed by the US. They have the economic influence, the army, a unified government (well, these days that ain't a great asset) while we are a conglomerate of more or less convergent interests that struggle to do anything together. The world has become too small for countries of 5-70 million people to really compete with the US, Russia, China and India. So as long as we don't sort that shit and get a functional supranational government, we are the bitches of the least scary superpower, and that is the US, which, despite all their flaws are a great country compared to a kleptocratic Russia or a far away ruthless dictatorship like China. Your argument is way too reasonable and you give way too much respect to what the enemies of Europe are saying. It is not what they are meaning. The unspoken questions are: - How is a strong souvereign Europe better for Russia or the USA than one that you can enforce a certain hegemony over? - Why would a radical nationalist care about material questions? There is nothing in this deal for them, which is why they will always be against this idea for a long, long time. This is what the friends of Europe would actually have to communicate. The USA and Russia being united in their hatred for Europe is actually a very good sign, it means we are already standing up to their interests. I am probably in minority in my own country but I'm a big believer that strong and independent united Europe would be really beneficial for Russia. I think that once Russia stops being seen as "communist totalitarian oppressor that would conquer us the second the US stops protecting us" Europe will find that it has a lot of common interests with us. Russia stops being a 'communist totalitarian oppressor who would conquer us if given the chance' when it stops being a totalitarian regime that likes to invade its neighbours. The relative power of the EU has little(nothing) to do with the EU's aversion to Russia.
Let's keep the facts straight. Russia is not a totalitarian regime, it's just one of many autocracies around the world. It invaded exactly 1 its neighbour and the pretence for it was rather simple: EU was aggressively pushing for trade agreement that would harm Russian trade with one of its biggest partners - Ukraine. When Ukrainian revolution made it inevitable, Russia went for a retaliatory strike which was supposed to maximize harm to Ukraine's economy while achieving something that would rally together the population in the face of inevitable economical downfall following that strike. IMO this decision was disgusting, cynical and short-sided - but it achieved these goals: Ukraine is a failed state in need of serious financial help which is EU's responsibility now and people here still support the government despite huge economic problems.
As for relative power of EU, its growth would result in its stronger independency from US that would naturally make Russian government feel less threatened. This, in turn, would result in less actions that avert EU - including feeling the need to invade neighbours for "geopolitical reasons".
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The defense of the EU these days tends to be far more rooted in principle ("it prevents wars!") than in the reality of what the organization has become. That should be quite telling about how far the project has fallen into disarray. The EU came well after any form of project to bring nations closer together for the sake of preventing wars. And yet it thinks itself worthy of taking credit for 40 years of progress before its existence. BS.
At this point the EU is little more than a cancerous tumor that needs to be cut out. I wouldn't mourn its death because it hardly represents what its defenders claim it to represent.
|
good thing you're not from the EU in that case I guess
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Don't worry, there are more than enough Eurosceptics to satisfy this view that live within the borders of the EU. And at this rate we'll have more and more every passing year  .
|
And you know this due to your wast experience as a Russian that moved to the US?
Most people from the eastern EU i know just know one answer as to when they leave the EU/their country alligns with Russia again "move out asap"... At least the ones that remember how being "lead" by Russia felt.
|
Norway28654 Posts
Your hyperbole makes it hard to take you seriously tbh. Maybe take a page out of your own manual when you criticize people for calling Trump or Putin Hitler. The EU has issues, but a whole lot of europeans also think it massively improves their life quality. I've yet to see the cancer patient who feels that way about his or her tumor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
