Comments by "andy99ish" (@andy99ish) on "EU Debates | eudebates.tv"
channel.
-
24
-
21
-
15
-
A useful framework to think about European attitudes towards Russia might look like as follows: There are 3 belts of EU/NATO countries and one group friendly to Russia since centuries:
Belt 1: countries in immediate proximity to Russia and afraid of its unprovoked aggression: Baltic, Finland, Sweden, probably Norway.
Belt 2: countries more afraid of provoking Russia than fearing its unprovoked aggression: Germany, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Romania, Turkey, probably Slovenia, Croatia.
Belt 3: all other to the West (France, Benelux, Italy, Iberian, British Isles), who aren't really afraid of Russia.
Traditional Russophiles: The predominantly orthodox, ex Osman countries of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, North Macedonia.
Now one could debate about specific countries, including these EU/NATO countries I have left out.
Yet in my assessment the big picture is valid enough to predict, that there will be no common European policy towards Russia.
13
-
12
-
11
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MrJonas7 Actually as a historian I see many differences between now and the dynamics which led to WW II:
This time there is a military alliance (NATO) which was kept going, even though its enemy, the communist Soviet Union/ Warsaw Pact, has disappeared. And that new NATO came closer and closer to Russia, starting before Putin even came to power. It is a classic case of an obsolete institution having invented a new mission - and that mission being self-fulfilling. We label new NATO a defensive alliance. Yet its members, including Poland, invaded and occupied other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) for no good reason in the recent past. On top some US intellectuals openly float the idea that new NATO be a vehicle to disintegrate Russia.
There were no such things in the 1930s. No anti-German military alliance. Later victims / enemies of the Third Reich did everything to appease to Germany before. And no one aired the idea to dismantle Germany. Nevertheless Hitler pushed towards conquest and war. And his goals went very far beyond anything Russia wants now. His goals were outspokenly genocidal towards Slavs and Jews. We shall not dilute these horrors by likening every modern dictator to Adolf.
So: Back then one side was escalating. This time I see escalation from both sides, new NATO having started the chain reaction. Sure, maybe Russia would have moved forward anyway. But this way it was certain that it would. And so the US has learned what the real limits towards Russia are. That some Natives died in that process, was never a consideration for the modern American mind. They care as little about Igors and Olegs, as they cared about Iraqui Ahmeds, Kurdish Ferhads or Afghan Hamids falling off their departing planes. Trump is merely showing it openly.
What now ? After Eastern Europe gained freedom from the Soviet yoke (which the US first facilitated in Teheran/ Yalta and then bravely opposed), Europe shall now elevate itself from being vassals of the US to maturity.
For achieving that I agree to the evident – namely military buildup. But I will raise my voice for two things, which so far seem to escape public attention: Firstly, the mental readiness to war, which is the readiness to kill and be killed - and see our dear ones to do the same. And not “security policy”, as the silly euphemism goes.
But before that I raise my voice for a prudent foreign policy: For overcoming the tunnel view, that permanent conflict with Russia is inevitable, for overcoming that manichean idea, that we are angels and Russia is evil. And in order to find common European ground we first have to acknowledge present differences - see my original posting.
You would be astonished how many people in Poland share this kind of realism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andersmalmgren6528 "Great Britain bought time, the USA gave money and the Soviet Union gave blood". As a historian I agree with that simplification.
Yet you are wrong with "Europeans" (other than Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians) doing the heavy lifting. Continental European countries were neutral/friendly/cooperating (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, most Balkan countries, France to a large part, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Turkey).
Nearly all of the occupied nations on balance supported the Nazis (i.e. brief resistance vs. supplying volunteers for Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Bosnian SS Divisions).
The only big continental country which stands out is Poland.
Then the US, under progressive Mr. Roosevelt, handed 1/3 rd of Europe to the Georgian "Uncle Joe" Stalin. So that was not a specifically Baltic fate. I encourage you to broaden your horizon !
So the big picture is: Continental Europeans invent strange ideologies (communism, national socialism) and then kill each other. Even now they are not able to achieve lasting peace (Balkan wars of the 1990s, Ukraine).
The USA first helps and then abandons. Far from perfect - but better than continental Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NoName-hg6cc I am not repeating what the Kremlin says. The idea of realism in foreign policy is actually older than Russia. At the same time holding that everything the Kremlin says, is wrong by definition, is another manifestation of an anti-Russian fixation.
Some Western opinion influencers do call for deconstructing Russia. And NATO's policy of the last decades to welcome everyone except Russia, is de facto hostile towards it. Typical Russian phobia ? In this case not really : Putting Soviet missiles on Cuba was perceived to be such a threat towards the US, that President John F. Kennedy risked a nuclear war to prevent it. On top he showed no inhibitions to trample international law and Cuba's interests, did he ? More recently the USA and some European NATO countries have invaded the Iraq, because it might have the kind of weapons, the US has. And then Afghanistan was invaded, despite the Taliban's offer to get rid of Al Quaeda. Once that occupation got too costly, Western forces left - Afghans loyal to the US falling off the departing planes.
In a nutshell, the West is in no position to be a preacher of international law nor morality in foreign relations. We, the West, are conducting a realistic foreign policy, decorated by selective idealism. It is our moral obligation to state that in advance.
One of the two countries I am living in is Poland. Yes, Polish foreign policy shall account for its proximity to Russia. Which means: Neither provoking Russia nor being subservient to it. And for the worst case, maximum capability to self-defense. Very different than hating Russia for being there and dehumanizing them as orcs.
1
-
@boozolini4465 I am servant to no one. Not Russia, not the Ukraine, not the US, not Eurocrats like Draghi.
Nor to anti-Russian fixation, nor anti-Ukrainian fixation, nor other fixations.
The only things I bow to is Reality and God. About the latter we cannot debate. However we can debate about relevant reality.
What that is according to me, I have already laid out. If you see important issues in a different way, just present your views. And do yourself a favor - stop imagining, that everyone who has diverging interests / views, is of bad character. As such reflexes blur your vision and are opposed to a core value of the West, namely pluralism of opinions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReneBonde-t2z Denmark - I see, thanks.
Re changing NATO role: And there is the legitimacy / prestige issue: The invasion of the Iraq in 2003 had nothing to do with 9/11, and if anything only led to more terrorist threat, as in destabilized Iraq (and Syria and later Libya) the IS came up. That parallelly the West treats Saudi Arabia, homeland and global exporter of wahhabism (the radical school of Islam, in which Al Qaeda found its inspiration) as an ally, makes "war on terror" an even less credible slogan.
When it comes to Afghanistan, the picture is emerging, that the Taliban were quite ready to remove Al Qaeda from their country back in 2003 - if in return they had gotten assurance from the West to be left alone. This is also plausible as Bin Laden was found and killed not in Afghanistan but in Pakistan - a longtime ally of the US. So Afghanistan was not necessary either.
We Europeans have followed these US follies, just as vassals do. Consequently we have inherited also the burden of these past policies. No wonder then, that say, India, China and even big NATO member Turkey view our foreign policy as morally not better than Russia's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1