, what you are stating is the two party system that I'm talking about, which is actually in the minds of Americans. Oh... I have to vote the Dems/the GOP, because a voting to third party candidate would be a vote to the candidate I hate even more.

And then Americans have the idea of primaries. As if the only way for bring change would be through the existing parties. The US just like other countries have only the primary elections. What political parties do is totally dependent on the party works.

And finally the belief in all powerful POTUS. This is the problem. A Republic and a democratic system doesn't work like you elect a King/Emperor for four years, and he'll change everything. But that's what you do have now: a modern day version of emperor Nero. — ssu

Thanks for the lecture. :smile:

Yet Trump will his utmost to create destruction and destroy the economy and the foreign relations that the US has. In the end this will anger a lot Americans. — ssu

That's my hope. Right now, he's pissing off veterans again - the US has alot of veterans from its many unsuccessful wars - and maybe servicemen, too, which should make it harder for him to consolidate a military dictatorship. OTOH, those very actions may precipitate a change of leadership (".... peacefully, at his big white house, while tweeting in all caps....") After all, he's an old man and Vance is a relatively young man, sane, intelligent and master of the quick change. That's my fear.
Perilous times. But first, we just have to get through this brutal winter.

I think something more fundamental is going on, they are essentially trying to overthrow the liberal democratic order because they think it was destroying the US. And they think it's destroying Europe too... Europe is their ideological enemy now. — ChatteringMonkey

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. Yet Trump is more of a threat to the US than he is to Europe. Europe can go it's own way, but Americans should deserve better than have this bully destroying everything. Power has simply gone to the head of the senile narcissist.

I understand that it would be bad for Ukraine. What I don't understand is why you think our negotiating position will become better if we continue the war. — ChatteringMonkey

Because what is there to negotiate but Ukraine surrendering? As I've said, if Putin can get what he wants, what is there to negotiate? Perhaps that Putin can weaken the resolution of the Ukrainians by Trump's "negotiations", which basically is that kick the hell out of Ukraine and lick the ass of Putin.

What the fuck is there to negotiate? How much more Ukraine has to surrender? And if those negotiations don't go through (meaning Ukraine doesn't want to surrender), you think Trump won't support his friend Vladimir and blame everything at Zelenskyi? Likely Europe will support Ukraine and then Trump leaves NATO. After all, how could he know that France actually did come to the help of the US when article 5 was implemented after 9/11.

First, we have not given everything that Ukraine has needed, the effort hasn't been to support Ukraine so much that it could destroy Russian capability so much that Russia would accept a negotiated peace, it was give only so much, that Ukraine doesn't lose. That has been the error here. If everything would have been given then immediately, the F-16s, the long range artillery missiles, things would have been different. Biden opted not to do that. And now Trump is effectively hampering down the capabilities of Ukraine to defend itself, which just helps Russia to improve it's stance.

It hasn't been such a triumph for Russia as some even in this forum have portrayed it to be and Russia isn't the Soviet Union.

That's my hope. Right now, he's pissing off veterans again - the US has alot of veterans from its many unsuccessful wars - and maybe servicemen, too, which should make it harder for him to consolidate a military dictatorship. — Vera Mont

Since Trump, the draft-dodger, hasn't served, he doesn't understand at all that many people who do military service do take the oath that they give dead seriously. It's not just general Mark Milley, there will be resentment in the military if Trump disregards the Constitution.

This is why Trump and the MAGA-people absolutely hate general Milley, as he didn't hide what he thought of Emperor Trump. It isn't the only speech, but the last speech as he retired. Worth listening:


And as many have served with allies, the idea also that Trump throws away 80-years of alliances that have worked and jump to bed with a Russian dictator who hates America and will gladly want to see it's alliances break up, that will stir a lot of emotions.

I'm sure that some Americans take the Constitution and their Republic quite seriously. And aren't happy how Elon Musk wipes his ass with it.

After all, he's an old man and Vance is a relatively young man, sane, intelligent and master of the quick change. That's my fear.
Perilous times. But first, we just have to get through this brutal winter. — Vera Mont

Spring is coming. Here it's been very mild, no skiing in the south.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. — ssu

Do you not realize what precarious situation that gets us in? The last thing we should be doing at this particular moment is looking to get into prolonged wars.

Because what is there to negotiate but Ukraine surrendering? As I've said, if Putin can get what he wants, what is there to negotiate? Perhaps that Putin can weaken the resolution of the Ukrainians by Trump's "negotiations", which basically is that kick the hell out of Ukraine and lick the ass of Putin.

What the fuck is there to negotiate? How much more Ukraine has to surrender? — ssu

None of this matters if we can't take back territory, if you can't force a better negotiation position.

First, we have not given everything that Ukraine has needed, the effort hasn't been to support Ukraine so much that it could destroy Russian capability so much that Russia would accept a negotiated peace, it was give only so much, that Ukraine doesn't lose. That has been the error here. If everything would have been given then immediately, the F-16s, the long range artillery missiles, things would have been different. Biden opted not to do that. And now Trump is effectively hampering down the capabilities of Ukraine to defend itself, which just helps Russia to improve it's stance. — ssu

All of this is in the past, things we can't change anymore. We have to deal with the situation as is.

It hasn't been such a triumph for Russia as some even in this forum have portrayed it to be and Russia isn't the Soviet Union. — ssu

No, and it certainly hasn't been a triumph for the West either... the war is stuck and no going anywhere, certainly not in the direction we would want.

Please stop the warmongering, it's going to be the end of us.

First, we have not given everything that Ukraine has needed, the effort hasn't been to support Ukraine so much that it could destroy Russian capability so much that Russia would accept a negotiated peace, it was give only so much, that Ukraine doesn't lose. That has been the error here. If everything would have been given then immediately, the F-16s, the long range artillery missiles, things would have been different. Biden opted not to do that. And now Trump is effectively hampering down the capabilities of Ukraine to defend itself, which just helps Russia to improve it's stance. — ssu

I'd go a bit further: there should have been a much stronger response in 2014, enough to be a deterrent. Putin took a risk, the Ukrainians were hesitant/unprepared, everyone was caught by surprise. Of course that's easy to say in retrospect; things looked different back then. (Say, what might happen if unidentified/unmarked soldiers showed up on St Lawrence Island (Alaska) or something...?)

if we can't take back territory — ChatteringMonkey

Why keep assuming so? Sure it can be taken back, and the Ukrainians are eager to. They don't want to march on Moscow, they want to throw the invaders out of Ukraine. And Hungary ain't helpin'.

Why keep assuming so? Sure it can be taken back, and the Ukrainians are eager to. They don't want to march on Moscow, they want to throw the invaders out of Ukraine. And Hungary ain't helpin'. — jorndoe

The war has been going in the wrong direction the past 3 years, why do you assume that would change, if the US leaves the war?

What is the plan other than keep sending them more weapons to hold on for a little bit longer. Is there any plan?

Do you not realize what precarious situation that gets us in? The last thing we should be doing at this particular moment is looking to get into prolonged wars. — ChatteringMonkey

Try to understand that helping Ukraine isn't such a huge deal, it's not at all so costly, especially compared to the War on Terror thing. The West is NOT IN A WAR. The only thing Ukraine has asked is weapons. And if we push them to accept peace, their argument of having some kind of security guarantees is totally logical. There has already been those peace talks of Minsk I and Minsk II, which Putin then simply ignored and continued fighting.

For the US, the cost of the war in Afghanistan was 2 trillion and the cost of Iraq war was similar, if not more. Now the military aid to Ukraine that the US actually has given is just 66 billion dollars. And a lot of that isn't actually so costly, because it has been old equipment that has was to be disregarded. For example, it hasn't been the US that has given the few F-16's, but smaller NATO countries.

And for Europe, that in all has spent 140 billion in military and other aid to Ukraine altogether? Let's just put this into context with the stimulus package of the past Corona pandemic:

The EU’s long-term budget, coupled with NextGenerationEU (NGEU), the temporary instrument designed to boost the recovery, form the largest stimulus package ever financed in Europe. A total of €2.018 trillion in current prices* are helping rebuild a post-COVID-19 Europe. It will be a greener, more digital and more resilient Europe.

That was actually so much that the money simply couldn't be spent. So we really have to understand that this whole war isn't of utter importance even to Europe and is only existential to Ukraine. And what von der Leyen has now proposed is defense spending of 800 billion, which all naturally doesn't go to Ukraine.

And let's put to context even that 800 billion. Israel's defense spending is about 30 billion, France has 61 billion and both of these countries have a nuclear deterrence. Ukraine is spending in the war 63 billion dollars and Russia defense spending is now something like 106 billion annually. So that people are talking about using the 300 billion in frozen assets and well over 100 billion, what the hell is wrong here?

Why this defeatism?

All of this is just that Trump wants Russia to win, that's all. He wants to punish Ukraine because it hasn't surrendered to his beloved dictatorship. So this war is painted to be a forever war, that somehow Russia cannot be fought to a standstill that is has to negotiate. Nope, have to surrender, Ukraine!!!

Yet even that isn't the real threat for the US. If Americans just let Trump trample the foundations of the separation of powers and the Constitution, the US will really be banana republic itself run just like Latin American states in the past with a Caudillo type person at the helm. And this is a totally different issue.

I'd go a bit further: there should have been a much stronger response in 2014, enough to be a deterrent. — jorndoe

Yes, you are totally correct. Or better perhaps, after the 2008 Russo-Georgian war. But that was the time when American politicians dreamed about a "Reset" with Russia. And what have we now? A belligerent Russia that seems to be winning the propaganda war at least in the US as the American president blames Ukraine for starting the war.

I don't think you understand the situation the same way as I do.

It is a big deal for Europe because it is one of the big factors hurting the economy. Energy-prices are being pushed higher because of the lack of Russian gas. If energy-prices are that high you simply can't compete in the world economy and you will see more and more industry disappearing.

All of the money will be loaned because European goverments are virtually broke as it is. A tanking economy and a lot of debt will probably lead to stagflation. Meanwhile the world goes on with its merry business while Europe becomes a backwater. If Europe wants to keep some of its prosperity long term you will need Russia to trade resources anyway because we don't have a lot of that ourselves....

I think you just don't see the long term implications of all of this. This is a pivotal point in history because of all the geo-political shuffling going on. If we mess this us, we will bear the consequences for decades to come.

Non of this makes sense from the point of view of Europes interests, but I guess we should just make that sacrifice because it is the 'moral' thing to do.

It is a big deal for Europe because it is one of the big factors hurting the economy. Energy-prices are being pushed higher because of the lack of Russian gas. If energy-prices are that high you simply can't compete in the world economy and you will see more and more industry disappearing. — ChatteringMonkey

A bigger reason is that countries haven't had a realistic energy policies in the first place. Especially thinking that renewable energy will take care of everything and fossil fuels don't matter is the primary cause. Germany went and closed it's nuclear energy for no reason and the UK's energy situation isn't bad because of Russia.

Non of this makes sense from the point of view of Europes interests, but I guess we should just make that sacrifice because it is the 'moral' thing to do. — ChatteringMonkey

This isn't about "morality", it's about sovereignty and independence of the nation states belonging to Europe. We aren't supporting Ukraine just because Russia invaded it. We are anticipating the next move already.

How can I state this?

Perhaps coming back to video you posted on another thread about Jeffrey Sachs and his speech at the EU Parliament. (I listened to the speech, not the questions later)

First, does Sachs say anything negative about Putin's Russia? Does he mention the annexation of Crimea? No, he skipped that. If I remember correctly, according to him all rhetoric of Russia having territorial aspirations was "childish propaganda". So what Putin talks to the Russian people and has written about the "artificiality" of Ukraine and the injustice Russia has been a victim with losing Crimea doesn't matter or itself is childish propaganda too?

You simply have to be yourself critical about and notice the bias that Sachs has here. Is he right about the US giving up Middle East policy to Netanyahu? Yes, I think so. Did Brzezinski write "The Grand Chessboard" with aggressive hubris towards Russia? Yes, I have the book in bookshelf, yet it wasn't an US masterplan for Russia, because Brzezinski was just one voice in the cacophony of US foreign policy community of competing think tanks and commentators. Just like Jeffrey Sachs himself and his friend John Mearsheimer are. China or Russia might have masterplans, the US, not so.

Please understand that Russia and especially Putin's Russia is equally ruthlessly playing a similar, far more persistent game while every now and then the US administration changes and the priorities change. Even Gorbachev, Sachs' hero, hoped that the Soviet Union could "Finlandize" Europe, which means the Soviet Union having basically a say in domestic politics and in foreign policy of other the countries. That is at stake here. Supporting Ukraine isn't just based on what is morally right. Putin won't end at Ukraine, especially if it is given to him on a silver platter.

You might argue that isn't the US doing the same, trying to influence smaller states? Well, it really is different having been the ally of Soviet Union and Russia or having been an "ally" of the US. Just ask WHY people in former Warsaw countries wanted to join NATO? And btw, naturally every ambassador tries to influence their host countries, yet the vast of them in a friendly and open manner.

Yet since Trump has become the bully here, just watch the outcome of that with the ties with European countries. It won't go well. You see, for 76 years the US has played correctly it's cards with Europe, starting from the Marshal Plan, the Berlin Airlift, from president Kennedy stating "Ich bin ein Berliner" to president Reagan stating "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!". That is the America that critics of US foreign policy will on purpose not talk about, because that would blur their agenda. Yet that is the US that many Europeans remember.

Now all that is being thrown away with the contempt and disregard, near hostility that Trump is showing against Europe. With asking for Greenland and questioning the whole sovereignty of Canada the devils of jingoism and xenophobia are summoned up and the supporters of the Trump/Putin-axis market this as being part of "realpolitik", while those defending the international order are accused to be stooges of the "deep state".

Well, if national security doesn't mean anything to you, have then Putin destroy everything. He will. Because the next target after NATO will be the European Union. Sow discord and discontent in Europe is the way forward for Russia. Trump is doing the work for Putin in an astonishing way.

A bigger reason is that countries haven't had a realistic energy policies in the first place. Especially thinking that renewable energy will take care of everything and fossil fuels don't matter is the primary cause. Germany went and closed it's nuclear energy for no reason and the UK's energy situation isn't bad because of Russia. — ssu

Yes, mistakes have been made, but again we have to look at the situation as is. Renewable energy is still only a small portion of total energy consumption right now. Maybe we will get there eventually, but we will need gas for a while still.

First, does Sachs say anything negative about Putin's Russia? Does he mention the annexation of Crimea? No, he skipped that. If I remember correctly, according to him all rhetoric of Russia having territorial aspirations was "childish propaganda". So what Putin talks to the Russian people and has written about the "artificiality" of Ukraine and the injustice Russia has been a victim with losing Crimea doesn't matter or itself is childish propaganda too? — ssu

Well a lot of countries do this, Turkey has aspirations of taking back the whole Ottoman empire for instance, that doesn't mean they will start invading those countries necessarily. I would agree that they have those aspirations in general, but I think the real issue was genuinly the fact that Ukraine is vital for Russia's securiy because it's a straight line of 300 miles over plains to Moskou. And given the US trackrecord the concern was not wholy unjustified I would say. That and Putin maybe needed a war to stabilize his rule internally.

You simply have to be yourself critical about and notice the bias that Sachs has here. Is he right about the US giving up Middle East policy to Netanyahu? Yes, I think so. Did Brzezinski write "The Grand Chessboard" with aggressive hubris towards Russia? Yes, I have the book in bookshelf, yet it wasn't an US masterplan for Russia, because Brzezinski was just one voice in the cacophony of US foreign policy community of competing think tanks and commentators. Just like Jeffrey Sachs himself and his friend John Mearsheimer are. China or Russia might have masterplans, the US, not so. — ssu

I'm sure he has some bias, but all the regime change attemps and fraud wars they engaged in over the years don't seem like a mere coincidance. Maybe the hawkish policy makers generally won? Maybe there was a military-industry incentive to choose those policies over the others? For other countries it doesn't matter much if they have a grand plan or not if the consequences are the same.

You might argue that isn't the US doing the same, trying to influence smaller states? Well, it really is different having been the ally of Soviet Union and Russia or having been an "ally" of the US. Just ask WHY people in former Warsaw countries wanted to join NATO? And btw, naturally every ambassador tries to influence their host countries, yet the vast of them in a friendly and open manner. — ssu

Unless it's via secret CIA operations. Maybe people generally prefer to live in our type of society, but isn't part of it also that we were the dominant power and generally more wealthy than the rest of the world because of that.

Now all that is being thrown away with the contempt and disregard, near hostility that Trump is showing against Europe. With asking for Greenland and questioning the whole sovereignty of Canada the devils of jingoism and xenophobia are summoned up and the supporters of the Trump/Putin-axis market this as being part of "realpolitik", while those defending the international order are accused to be stooges of the "deep state".

Well, if national security doesn't mean anything to you, have then Putin destroy everything. He will. Because the next target after NATO will be the European Union. Sow discord and discontent in Europe is the way forward for Russia. Trump is doing the work for Putin in an astonishing way. — ssu

Here's how I see it.

The liberal democratic order was West-centric, with notions such as Univeral rights not making a lot of sense for other societies, and often used to unnecessarily antagonise them. Maybe it was due an overhaul now that China is more of an equal on the world stage. A new order will emerge, because anarchy is good for nobody. I think we should talk to China who is the one allready thinking in that direction. It doesn't have to end in a worse place, this is just a transition, which is why we should try to look at world not only from our Western perspective now and try to find agreement instead of looking for the disagreement.

NATO should be replaced by our own European security achitecture, and I think that would healthy because then we will need to take it seriously and can determine our own course... and devellop some geo-political consciousness again.

The European Union needs to be reformed too, maybe replaced by a federation or something. You need real agency at the top if you want to be a player on the world stage, and you can't have that if you are perpetually divided with that many member states. Now we are being ruled by a bureaucracy that devellops an internal logic of its own that doesn't necessarily serve the member states. I would stop a lot of the harmonisation efforts of the Commission so countries have more say again in how they want to organise their state. Real diversity in countries and unity in strength under Europe.

I think we need to look forward SSU, and not backwards, clinging to a world that is disappearing. That's why I think we should do everything to get out of this perpetual dance of the death with Russia, it is important.

Well a lot of countries do this, Turkey has aspirations of taking back the whole Ottoman empire for instance, that doesn't mean they will start invading those countries necessarily. — ChatteringMonkey

Actually no. Very few countries have aspirations for territorial expansion. UK, Austria, France, Spain, Germany etc. don't have politicians pushing for conquering the lost territories and bring back the former glory of a past empire. Putin does (unlike Jeffrey Sachs says). We are totally blind if we don't see this. And Russians that I've talked here in Finland (who can openly share their minds) don't like Putin. In fact, only in 2014 I saw two Russians in Helsinki with the black and orange stripes. Countries that have desires like this are few, yet they aren't nonexistent.

The liberal democratic order was West-centric, with notions such as Univeral rights not making a lot of sense for other societies, and often used to unnecessarily antagonise them. — ChatteringMonkey

How do universal rights not make a lot of sense for other societies? What other societies are you thinking of? Are they somehow incapable of living up to our level or simply just love more autocracy?

I think the Estonians are extremely happy to live in a democracy with those universal rights than to be under the jackboot of Russia. Besides, Putin's Russia has now MORE political prisoners than the Soviet Union had during Brezhnev... and the country was far larger than now. Why do you disregard and throw away values and rights that at least my grandfathers fought for? And why talk of it in past tense. You think that democracy has already died?

NATO should be replaced by our own European security achitecture, and I think that would healthy because then we will need to take it seriously and can determine our own course... and devellop some geo-political consciousness again. — ChatteringMonkey

NATO will be replaced by an European security architechture, if Trump wants to destroy as Putin would desire and if we and the Americans let him do that. And then Russia will go against that European rump-NATO and the European Union.

The European Union needs to be reformed too, maybe replaced by a federation or something. — ChatteringMonkey

Nah. Reform it on the way, but no reason to change the name. And a US style federation won't work.

You need real agency at the top if you want to be a player on the world stage, and you can't have that if you are perpetually divided with that many member states. - I would stop a lot of the harmonisation efforts of the Commission so countries have more say again in how they want to organise their state. Real diversity in countries and unity in strength under Europe. — ChatteringMonkey

These two seem to be opposed to the other.

I would suggest the ability to go forward with a "coalition of the willing" in issues and that there isn't the ability of one or two countries to simply oppose everything and bloc action of the union. And simply to understand that EU has it's limitations, it cannot act as a single nation state, but it can act as a pact.

The most urgent issue is that our politicians wake up to the threat that the Putin/Trump pact is for Europe. In no way this appeasement and support that Trump gives to Putin (with the alt-right cheering it) serves the interests of Europe. Likely Putin has promised Trump a bigger "minerals deal" if he hands over Ukraine to Russia. All the actions taken by to undermine Ukraine start unveiling a really bad situation. And Trumps obsession for Greenland (and Canada) perhaps shows that Trump is drooling for riches in this new imperialist game he wants to play with Putin, who is in real trouble otherwise.

How do universal rights not make a lot of sense for other societies? What other societies are you thinking of? Are they somehow incapable of living up to our level or simply just love more autocracy? — ssu

No they just have another order of values. They think stability comes before rights, which I would argue makes some sense because you can't protect rights if you don't have a working order to protect them. So Putin or Xi think they can remove dissindents because it threathens the stability of the country. Liberal democracy isn't allways something that works because of the circumstances some countries find themselves in... just look at all the failed attempts of the west to install these kind of regimes. Sometimes it just doesn't work, and then you get violent anarchy like in Irak for instance, or Lybia, or Syria. Or look at the US now, or Nazi germany, democratically choosen! It think the assumption that liberal democracy is allways the best is bit misguided.

NATO will be replaced by an European security architechture, if Trump wants to destroy as Putin would desire and if we and the Americans let him do that. And then Russia will go against that European rump-NATO and the European Union. — ssu

And we can detter it with military strenght, like the US did untill now, without the antagonising.

These two seem to be opposed to the other. — ssu

It's the principle of subsidiarity, you delegate everything you can to the more local levels, and at the highest level you keep only what needs to be dealt with on the highest level. Foreign policy, defense would probably need to be cöordinated at the top level because that makes most sense.

I would suggest the ability to go forward with a "coalition of the willing" in issues and that there isn't the ability of one or two countries to simply oppose everything and bloc action of the union. And simply to understand that EU has it's limitations, it cannot act as a single nation state, but it can act as a pact. — ssu

You can never devellop a consistent longer term strategy like that I think, which is what all other blocs are doing... you will end up being a leaf in the wind on the geopolitical stage.

The most urgent issue is that our politicians wake up to the threat that the Putin/Trump pact is for Europe. In no way this appeasement and support that Trump gives to Putin (with the alt-right cheering it) serves the interests of Europe. Likely Putin has promised Trump a bigger "minerals deal" if he hands over Ukraine to Russia. All the actions taken by to undermine Ukraine start unveiling a really bad situation. And Trumps obsession for Greenland (and Canada) perhaps shows that Trump is drooling for riches in this new imperialist game he wants to play with Putin, who is in real trouble otherwise. — ssu

Ooh they are awake allright. I think they should keep calm and not overreact... that is the bigger danger now.

No they just have another order of values. They think stability comes before rights, which I would argue makes some sense — ChatteringMonkey

I think that everybody thinks so. Without stability or in anarchy, the first "value" is simply one's own safety. This has been seen so many times. If the government stops working, then the first thing that happens is that people in the society take on the mission on what the police has had. Either it's by armed militias or gangs, or then local politicians become warlords. Societies with strong social cohesion simply wouldn't have their governments become incapacitated. The social cohesion means that people won't turn to arms.

Liberal democracy isn't allways something that works because of the circumstances some countries find themselves in... just look at all the failed attempts of the west to install these kind of regimes. Sometimes it just doesn't work, and then you get violent anarchy like in Irak for instance, or Lybia, or Syria. — ChatteringMonkey

In the case of Iraq, Libya and Syria, the road to a liberal democracy is extremely hard, and if there are enough warlords or armed ethnic groups that want their own independence or do not want liberal democracy, it simply won't work. And with outside powers financing the different groups the outcome is that liberal democracy isn't happening.

The US attempt in Iraq makes this evident, you cannot have a functioning liberal democracy if you don't have political resolution of the of power-sharing between the Sunni's and Shia's or what to do when the aim of the Kurds is independence. Just assuming to have elections and those kind of issue will be solved is naive and basically foolish. George Bush the older understood this and took the advice of his Arab allies and didn't continue into Baghdad after liberating Kuwait.

You can never devellop a consistent longer term strategy like that I think, which is what all other blocs are doing... you will end up being a leaf in the wind on the geopolitical stage. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't want the EU to be an Empire. It can have a defense, but not be offensive. There's always going to be some Hungary around, but also so many the sovereign states won't start something extremely stupid. At least some countries will come to the conclusion that "this would be stupid".

I agree with most of what you said SSU. The point I wanted to make is that if liberal democracy and the values that come with that, are very difficult to implement in these countries, maybe we should be a little bit more understanding of that fact that it isn't feasible for them to adhere to all of those values we have declared as universal.

The weak point of liberal democracy is stability.

I don't want the EU to be an Empire. It can have a defense, but not be offensive. There's always going to be some Hungary around, but also so many the sovereign states won't start something extremely stupid. At least some countries will come to the conclusion that "this would be stupid". — ssu

Yes for sure I don't want empire either, we should build in enough checks and balances to prevent that.

So why I think this could work, i.e. having a more centralised defence and foreign policy, is 1) it would enable us to defend Europes interests better on the world stage, which would be a net benefit for all countries and 2) it would prevent European countries from fighting among each other.

Why do I think the latter is important? I think one of the problems of the EU has allways been the democratic deficit, the notion that European bureaucracy is to far removed from the people and is just doing stuff that is not in the interest of the countries and its people. The way to solve this is to bring back government to the more local level so there is more of a connection again between goverment and the people (the principle of subsidiarity). If you want to do that however you probably get stronger nationalist sentiments forming again, and you risk what has happened again and again in Europes history, European countries going to war with eachother. By tying up the miltary of the countries in a more central European defence you could effectively avoid that from happening. The EU was a peaceproject, it was very effective in preventing intra-European wars, just not that effective in other areas.

The point I wanted to make is that if liberal democracy and the values that come with that, are very difficult to implement in these countries, maybe we should be a little bit more understanding of that fact that it isn't feasible for them to adhere to all of those values we have declared as universal. — ChatteringMonkey

I think the reasoning here is that the democratic republic, the needed functioning institutions, are difficult, but not unobtainable. India has been a democracy. Many Third World countries have been democracies and, at least, try to be democracies. We can see just how long that takes, especially with the example of South Korea. It has finally gotten to be a democracy, it's prosperous. And then, the leader tried an auto-coup.

In fact comes to my mind a very prosperous and large advanced country, that tries to be a democracy, but seems to have problems with this.... :snicker:

Yes for sure I don't want empire either, we should build in enough checks and balances to prevent that. — ChatteringMonkey

One reason in that Europe is so diverse. Spain and Finland are different, just as Greece and Ireland. That makes the EU to function like an Empire extremely different. There is no leading country, as there would have been if either Napoleon or Hitler had succeeded. And how long those Empires would have lasted? I'm not sure.

So why I think this could work, i.e. having a more centralised defence and foreign policy, is 1) it would enable us to defend Europes interests better on the world stage, which would be a net benefit for all countries and 2) it would prevent European countries from fighting among each other. — ChatteringMonkey

Actually, there is now one unifying reason: Donald Trump.

If the US would, just like Obama and Biden and the presidents before them, stand with Europe, Russia wouldn't pose a threat. Now when Trump is in Putin's pocket, Russia is an existential threat. Add there the trade war. Add there the territorial annexation agende of Greenland, which is part of Denmark.

True unification usually happens with an outside threat. That is there now.

To clarify maybe, true unification is not what I'm aiming for, i'm arguing for both centralisation of defence and foreign policy, and decentralisation of other things. Maybe a confederation is a better model for this.

Actually, there is now one unifying reason: Donald Trump.

If the US would, just like Obama and Biden and the presidents before them, stand with Europe, Russia wouldn't pose a threat. Now when Trump is in Putin's pocket, Russia is an existential threat. Add there the trade war. Add there the territorial annexation agende of Greenland, which is part of Denmark.

True unification usually happens with an outside threat. That is there now. — ssu

Yes the Russia threat and US tradewar is a unifying force, certainly initially, but it's also a polarising and splitting force. Militarisation of the economy and a tradewar induced recession will also create a lot of discontent in European countries. That discontent usually gets vacuumed up by far right parties that are financially supported by Putin and ideologically supported by alt-right media. It seems you can expect some countries to flip in coming election cycles should the war drag on another couple of years... and if that happens then you could very well see the end the EU, which is what Trump and Putin want, and/or the war spilling over into Europe.

That scenario, which seems very plausible to me, is what got me blackpilled on this war, but I guess nobody sees it like that.

I think we have to understand that the EU is truly an union of sovereign states, which will continue to be sovereign states.

I remember years ago an EU political advisor stating the obvious. One cannot erase the national identity of the people, one can only create a higher level identity that joins the people. Yet this is an absolutely enormous task to do, having a flag and anthem simply won't do. The creation of people being British shows that this is possible, the example of being an Yugoslav or a Soviet shows this can utterly fail.

What is essential to sovereign nation states is the shared collective feeling about them. Patriotism, the love of your country. Love isn't something that you rationally and logically conclude.

Many Finns get tears in their eyes when the national anthem is played and the Finnish flag is raised. It's not because of the Finnish having paying a price, it's what they have experienced, what their own family, their grandparents and now great grandparents went through to keep the country independent. That's the thing that ties history to oneself and makes it personal. Nothing of this kind of happens when we have the EU flag and the nice peace from Beethoven is played. Here the EU has failed and is failing. It could do a lot more.

I think we have to understand that the EU is truly an union of sovereign states, which will continue to be sovereign states. — ssu

Yes I totally agree with you about this, this is why I would give back a lot of what the Commission does now back to the countries... because they have lost a lot of their sovereignity to the EU, and are hampered in their ability to implement effective policies to deal with problems in their country.

I'm talking mostly only about a more permanent centralisation of defence and military because that makes sense in the world we are seeming to be heading to. And really, in practice sovereignity in foreign policy and defence is allready mostly dead letter now because a lot of it is determined by NATO.

Yes I totally agree with you about this, this is why I would give back a lot of what the Commission does now back to the countries... because they have lost a lot of their sovereignity to the EU, and are hampered in their ability to implement effective policies to deal with problems in their country. — ChatteringMonkey

Note that the sovereign countries have understood the necessity for integration and for their to be system of having a Commission. They have given some sovereignty over to the EU, but notice that in the end they could take it back (and make a crisis in EU).

I'm talking mostly only about a more permanent centralisation of defence and military because that makes sense in the world we are seeming to be heading to. And really, in practice sovereignity in foreign policy and defence is allready mostly dead letter now because a lot of it is determined by NATO. — ChatteringMonkey

Actually, NATO gives a good, realistic, concept to follow here. Only without the US. So you have to have that command structures. In fact, this can happen inside NATO in the way that European NATO members and Canada just start assuming that the US isn't there and start having exercises without the US.

Actually, NATO gives a good, realistic, concept to follow here. Only without the US. So you have to have that command structures. In fact, this can happen inside NATO in the way that European NATO members and Canada just start assuming that the US isn't there and start having exercises without the US. — ssu

You could use it as a template, or reform NATO itself sure, but I would do 3 things differently.

1) I think there needs to be political leadership over it, so you have accountability to the public, and also real agency because it has a mandate from the public

2) We need a alliance for European security seperate from the US, because if you are only a junior partner in an alliance you usually have little controle over where it goes.

3) It shouldn't be an alliance against Russia, because all of the reasons I have been harping on about in previous posts.

3) It shouldn't be an alliance against Russia, because all of the reasons I have been harping on about in previous posts. — ChatteringMonkey

Ok, for this I have to make some comments.

Defense treaties aren't established when is there is no threat. And alliance isn't formed that then goes look for possible adversaries. That's the way it never happens. There already has to be a real reason.

Secondly,

As Trump has repeatedly question the sovereignty of Canada, the Canadian-US border and made hinted even to use military force to annex Greenland from Denmark. Why wouldn't the US the be then as hostile or even more hostile than Russia?

The reason is that all above is basically statements of Trump, who says a lot of things. Yet the US military isn't training in large scale exercises to invade Canada. US military personnel aren't talking about annexing Canada. US television isn't having television shows how Canada or Greenland would be invaded. The US isn't jamming Canadian GPS system or it's receivers. The US doesn't see that it's in a proxy war with Canada. And The US hasn't declared Canada to be it's enemy.

That's the difference. All of the above is actually the hostility that Russia shows to it's Western neighbors.

Ok SSU let me ask you this, what do you think our long term strategy should be towards Russia?

I think, as I stated before, that the dynamics or the relation between the two has gotten us to where we are, not only Russia. And I think NATO was a part of that because it structurally creates tension as Russia is the explicit reason for the alliance.

We could have a alliance not against Russia, but for European security and involve Russia so it doesn't threaten its security, but also improves its security.

Putin is not going to live forever, but Russia is allways going to be there. I think we should look to the future, and not institutionalise the current conflict with Russia. Because if that is what you expect and build towards, then that is probably what you are going to get.

Ok SSU let me ask you this, what do you think our long term strategy should be towards Russia? — ChatteringMonkey

There's been enough of "resets" and understanding of Putin's Russia. As long as Putin's Russia is as hostile as it is, we should treat it as a threat, just like the West treated Soviet Union. Appeasement now will just show that Europe is inherently weak and can be forced with the threat of violence to give everything up.

We could have a alliance not against Russia, but for European security and involve Russia so it doesn't threaten its security, but also improves its security. — ChatteringMonkey

Please do understand that Putin's Russia wants to dissolve the European Union and hence is a genuine threat to it. Someone that is your adversary really isn't your friend and you won't improve your security by going along with it. China isn't such aggressive as Russia.

Putin is not going to live forever, but Russia is allways going to be there. — ChatteringMonkey

And as long as Russia sees itself as a Great Power that should have it's sphere of influence in Europe, that long it's an existential threat. It can have a revolution and understand that the time of it's Imperial greatness is over, just like the UK understood and even France was forced to understand.

There's not going to be any difference if one siloviki is replaced with another siloviki, like Putin replaced by perhaps Nikolai Patrushev or someone similar. But I guess instantly many will again want to push immediately the "reset" button, even if the "new" guy has been all along with Putin.

There's been enough of "resets" and understanding of Putin's Russia. As long as Putin's Russia is as hostile as it is, we should treat it as a threat, just like the West treated Soviet Union. Appeasement now will just show that Europe is inherently weak and can be forced with the threat of violence to give everything up. — ssu

It think the problem with this line of thinking is that we are in fact weak. Instead of trying to hold up a facade of strenght by not giving into Russia, maybe we should try to actually be strong. And to be strong you need to have a good economy, and for that you need cheaper energy...

I think these psychological considerations matter a whole lot less that we might think, it's the facts on the ground that matter most, and there Russia is winning.

Please do understand that Putin's Russia wants to dissolve the European Union and hence is a genuine threat to it. Someone that is your adversary really isn't your friend and you won't improve your security by going along with it. China isn't such aggressive as Russia. — ssu

I don't deny this, they are our adversary now and we should treat them as such for the forseable future. That doesn't mean we can't try to de-escalate and work towards having a less destructive relation.

And as long as Russia sees itself as a Great Power that should have it's sphere of influence in Europe, that long it's an existential threat. It can have a revolution and understand that the time of it's Imperial greatness is over, just like the UK understood and even France was forced to understand. — ssu

It think it's going to be difficult to get them that far, the break up of the USSR is still etched in their minds as one of the most damaging things that has happened to them in history... they lost as much people as in World War II in that period. Putin was and is the one holding the oligarchs in check. I don't think you can just have a revolution and expect things to go swimmingly for them.

It think the problem with this line of thinking is that we are in fact weak. — ChatteringMonkey

Why do you think so?

There's far enough resources, technological ability and I would say unity to defend the union. Going on in out of the area peace enforcing or other stuff isn't going to be popular, but the simple fact of defending the member states from outside aggression is an reachable goal.

Look, my country wasn't part of NATO, was left totally to the sphere of Stalin and yet we had enough deterrence to stay independent. Why now would we have less deterrence when we are in an alliance and when Europe is pouring 800 billion into defense procurement?

And to be strong you need to have a good economy, and for that you need cheaper energy... — ChatteringMonkey

Nonsense. We are talking of military strength and deterrence. Just look at what a basket case is Russia itself. And look how poor actually the Chinese are compared per capita to us. One has to understand that the NATO countries (minus US) spend more than China and Russia COMBINED in defense. It's really a simply an issue of having will here to really to put serious investment into defense.

I think these psychological considerations matter a whole lot less that we might think, it's the facts on the ground that matter most, and there Russia is winning. — ChatteringMonkey

Russia isn't winning. Ukrainians can decide if they want to fight for their country or not. It is up to us if we want to give them support. For example: over 70 F-16 fighters have been pledged to be given to Ukraine. Now only 18 have been sent, I guess. We in Europe have to understand that Trump is hostile to us, he isn't our friend.

I don't deny this, they are our adversary now and we should treat them as such for the forseable future. That doesn't mean we can't try to de-escalate and work towards having a less destructive relation. — ChatteringMonkey

How?
By giving into Putin's demands? By sidelining the Ukrainians here, just as Trump does?

This approach was used earlier in history. Then the British Prime Minister stated:

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.
I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

And Chamberlain was praised at the time as “the benefactor of the world” while Chamberlain’s critics were “‘war-mongers“. That people "felt a very proper reluctance of sending young men of this country” to war, especially as there were no personal feelings of “ill-will” between British men and “their German and Italian contemporaries.”

Why do you think so?

There's far enough resources, technological ability and I would say unity to defend the union. Going on in out of the area peace enforcing or other stuff isn't going to be popular, but the simple fact of defending the member states from outside aggression is an reachable goal.

Look, my country wasn't part of NATO, was left totally to the sphere of Stalin and yet we had enough deterrence to stay independent. Why now would we have less deterrence when we are in an alliance and when Europe is pouring 800 billion into defense procurement? — ssu

Assuming the US bows out of the war, we are weak at this particular moment because they did a lot of the coördination, the intelligence, logistics, tactical support etc... I think we need some time to get those things in order.

We also lack the battle experience. Russia is already fighting the war for 3 years now, they have a military economy going, and probably would want to keep it going because they are allready geared for it now. We're only just getting started.

I'm talking about the Ukraine war specifically... because to turn arround that war you essentially need to take back territory. Deterring Russia in the future is another matter, I think we could do that if we can prepare for it. Defence is generally a lot easier than offence.

Nonsense. We are talking of military strength and deterrence. Just look at what a basket case is Russia itself. And look how poor actually the Chinese are compared per capita to us. One has to understand that the NATO countries (minus US) spend more than China and Russia COMBINED in defense. It's really a simply an issue of having will here to really to put serious investment into defense. — ssu

I think you maybe don't fully appreciate how much a lot of European countries are in debt allready, because you live in a country that is doing really well compared to the rest. You also probably have a military that was taken seriously because of the Russia threat that was allways there for Finland... in Western Europe there hasn't been a serious threat for 80 years, and as a consequence the military has suffered. Large investements are needed, with money that isn't really there.

Russia is maybe a basket case in the overall, but they probably can keep a war economy going pretty easily because of the abundant natural resources they can allways export.

Russia isn't winning. Ukrainians can decide if they want to fight for their country or not. It is up to us if we want to give them support. For example: over 70 F-16 fighters have been pledged to be given to Ukraine. Now only 18 have been sent, I guess. We in Europe have to understand that Trump is hostile to us, he isn't our friend. — ssu

They are winning because they have conquered territory from Ukraine. Since they already occupy the territories they are asking for, they don't really need a peace deal... why would they settle for less if we can't get them out anytime soon?

How?
By giving into Putin's demands? By sidelining the Ukrainians here, just as Trump does? — ssu

Zelenski will have to listen to us because without our support he's losing the war anyway. We support him to get the realistically best possible peace deal, not to fight on indefinately. And yes that will mostly be giving into Putin's demands, i.e. no Nato, giving up the occupied territories for the most part, new elections in Ukraine... the one thing I would push for is a good enough security arrangement for Ukraine so Russia can't just start over. That is called cutting your losses.

And Chamberlain was praised at the time as “the benefactor of the world” while Chamberlain’s critics were “‘war-mongers“. That people "felt a very proper reluctance of sending young men of this country” to war, especially as there were no personal feelings of “ill-will” between British men and “their German and Italian contemporaries.” — ssu

Russia is in no way in a similar position as Nazi-germany. They have trouble conquering a small part of a neighbouring country. The fear that Russia will invade the rest of Europe is irrational from a practical point of view, and also contradictory with the idea that we should keep the Ukraine war going because we think we can just conquer back the territory.... you can't have it both ways.

We need to borrow more money because COVID, because Russia, because climate change, because an aging demographic, because there is allways a reason!

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GG_DEBT_GDP@GDD/CAN/FRA/DEU/ITA/JPN/GBR/USA

It's not going to end well.

in Western Europe there hasn't been a serious threat for 80 years, and as a consequence the military has suffered. — ChatteringMonkey

This simply isn't true. During the Cold War, there was a credible deterrence against the Soviet threat. The Bundeswehr had a strength of half a million soldiers. Heck, Germany would have had even tactical nuclear weapons during wartime. Now you can see this equipment in a museum.



This draw down happened only after the Cold War ended. That is 30 years ago, not 80 years. And naturally the threat that Putin's Russia poses is far smaller than what the Soviet Union did.

Since they already occupy the territories they are asking for, they don't really need a peace deal... — ChatteringMonkey

Actually, they don't. Putin is asking for oblasts that aren't totally in Russian hands.

We support him to get the realistically best possible peace deal, not to fight on indefinately. — ChatteringMonkey

That would be the European objective, not Trump's objective, who is basically doing the bidding of Russia here.

Russia is in no way in a similar position as Nazi-germany. They have trouble conquering a small part of a neighbouring country. — ChatteringMonkey

Which has been supported by the largest alliance in history, up until Trump. But cut off that aid, and Russia can take Ukraine. And once there's a cease-fire, then Russia can build up in few years the armament that it has lost. Also it drafts hundreds of thousands of conscripts annually.

When Russia says it's at war with NATO and the West, we should understand that he means it.

We need to borrow more money because COVID, because Russia, because climate change, because an aging demographic, because there is allways a reason!

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GG_DEBT_GDP@GDD/CAN/FRA/DEU/ITA/JPN/GBR/USA

It's not going to end well. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, it's not going to end well.

The system is just going to default in some way or another. That simple.
You can default or then you can pay it with inflation.

This draw down happened only after the Cold War ended. That is 30 years ago, not 80 years. And naturally the threat that Putin's Russia poses is far smaller than what the Soviet Union did. — ssu

Yes I was overstating the case a bit, it is 30 years of no threat... the result is the same though, the military hasn't been taken seriously.

That would be the European objective, not Trump's objective, who is basically doing the bidding of Russia here. — ssu

But then we should take some initiative towards realising that objective, instead of merely antagonising like we are doing now and for the past 3 years. And I don't think Trump is doing Putin's bidding, he just wants out because he thinks that is in US interests... and for that he needs to find some common ground with Putin. Just repeating over and over how evil Putin is, isn't going to get us closer to a peace deal.

Which has been supported by the largest alliance in history, up until Trump. But cut off that aid, and Russia can take Ukraine. And once there's a cease-fire, then Russia can build up in few years the armament that it has lost. Also it drafts hundreds of thousands of conscripts annually.

When Russia says it's at war with NATO and the West, we should understand that he means it. — ssu

I think he says that because we keep pretending like we are not in the war, i.e. that we're only providing help "to protect Ukraines soevereignity".

But yes we need to find a workable security arrangement for Ukraine, I do agree with that because otherwise you have the same problem in a few years. That is the single most important thing we should be aiming for, and to achieve that we will probably need to make some other concessions. And it will take a lot of time and effort to get there, so we better get started to move the conversation in that direction.

Yes, it's not going to end well.

The system is just going to default in some way or another. That simple.
You can default or then you can pay it with inflation. — ssu

And then what, we end up in a Weimar Germany kind of situation? You don't think that is something we should be trying to avoid at all cost?

This is what I don't understand, rhetorically we have our mouth full of warnings about the looming dangers of fascism, but then in practice we are doing exactly the things we know leads to extremism.