8 ms·

it's worth noting that the whole EU starting from the earlier european communities was built on such an idea that tighter and tighter integration would make war

it's worth noting that the whole EU starting from the earlier european communities was built on such an idea that tighter and tighter integration would make war unlikely (and in some cases, unthinkable). While this didn't work out for the Russian relationship, it wasn't a totally stupid plan.

fosk 5y ago
This war has proven that as long as national interests are strong enough, those economical ties most likely won't last..which is a scary precedent for Europe in general.
- skissane 5y ago
  Russia has a lot of special characteristics which most other European states lack: (1) huge population and area; (2) permanent member of UN Security Council; (3) accepted nuclear weapons state with one of world’s largest nuclear arsenals; (4) superpower with a massive multi-decade empire only 3-4 decades ago. Few other European states have any or all of these characteristics; UK and France probably come the closest, yet the idea of either of them emulating Russia seems rather implausible. In short, just because the strategy failed for Russia, doesn’t really disprove the strategy in general, given Russia is such a special case.
  - lnsru 5y ago
    Huge population!? Not even twice bigger than Germany. Area is huge. As natural resources lying all over the place. They all could live like princes in Dubai, but made a different choice. They have nuclear weapons for sure, but I wouldn’t like to speculate about their maintenance and availability.
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      > Huge population!? Not even twice bigger than Germany. They can easily fix that by annexing former SSSR territories (about 230 million)
      - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        They don't really want to be re-annexed though. Probably never did in the first place either, but when do you really have a choice?
        ithkuil 5y ago
        Even if Russia doesn't actually annex other former SSSR countries, many Russian nationalists still think of them as being an extension of Russia, a part of the empire, and thus in their worldview Russia is clearly more than twice bigger than Germany
    - varjag 5y ago
      Germany has the biggest population in EU, so twice of that is rather huge.
    - skissane 5y ago
      > Huge population!? Not even twice bigger than Germany Germany also has a huge population, especially by European standards, even if somewhat less huge than Russia’s. Both Germany and Russia are outliers, being in some ways far from the European average. What makes Russia much more distinctive, is in how many different ways it is an outlier - arguably in a fair few more ways than contemporary Germany is, which makes it a much bigger outlier overall. > They have nuclear weapons for sure, but I wouldn’t like to speculate about their maintenance and availability. For a decent-sized nation state, nuclear weapons aren’t actually that hard to manufacture and maintain and deliver, especially if they aim at basic functionality and aren’t trying to be on the cutting edge. The biggest obstacles for most such countries are (1) the rest of the world will try to stop them through sanctions, clandestine operations, even military action; (2) if you don’t have domestic uranium deposits, it is very hard to buy uranium for military use, all major sellers will insist you promise to use it for civilian purposes only and submit to regular inspections to prove that. As an accepted nuclear weapons state, Russia doesn’t have to worry about (1); Russia also has substantial uranium reserves and is one of the world’s leading uranium exporters, so it doesn’t have to worry about (2) either. So I think Russia’s nuclear arsenal is likely to be reliable and usable.
      - aforwardslash 5y ago
        Maintenance of nuclear weapons (specially if old design) is actually very expensive - probably more than their manufacturing cost. Russia claims to have a huge stockpile, but their PIB is at the level of Spain (that has like 40% of russia's population). There is a huge disproportion between the military might Russia claims yo have, and their actual capacity of paying for it. If on paper it doesn't add up, the reality we've been seeing in Ukraine is even worse - even cheap stuff like comms are notoriously unreliable.
        skissane 5y ago
        I can't really debate the ease of maintaining nuclear weapons with you–our impressions are different, it would be great to find some reliable sources to objectively judge those impressions against, but I don't know of any, unless you do. > Russia claims to have a huge stockpile, but their PIB is at the level of Spain (that has like 40% of russia's population). I was confused by this–what is PIB? Then I realised you are probably a French-speaker, and PIB means produit intérieur brut, which is the French equivalent to what we call in English, GDP.
  - dainiusse 5y ago
    It is also number one country of corruption (not that corruption doesn't exist elsewhere as well)
  - jollybean 5y ago
    I don't think those are it. 1) Massive Natural Resources (carbon fuels) which mean they don't have to do anything productive and can make huge money. 2) Totalitarian with Kleptocracy. The population accepts it over anything else, Putin keeps all competitors at bay. This means a single cabal can make big decisions. 3) Cultural Chauvinism. 30% are 'totally cool' with wiping out their neighbours in the vein of some cooked up rubbish. Even when they know it's 'cooked up'. I think they are definitely product I don't think they see themselves as 'ubermench' I think it's a kind of 'superiority from an inferiority' complex. They also lack empathy compared to most other places, not on an individual level, but on a cultural level. There are no leaders who speak of hope, togetherness, prosperity - those are viewed as 'weak'. (Paradoxically their 'strong' people are just incompetent killers). So with Money, Control, and Cultural Chauvinism - you have potentiality for big things. Like war. 'Security Council' is not that important. Nukes are actually not important - but they do provide an 'umbrella' of cover, in that, NATO would already be in Ukraine otherwise. So they can be decisive. Their 'former empire' is not relevant other than in the jingoistic psyche of Putin and some of the plebes.
    - skissane 5y ago
      > 3) Cultural Chauvinism A very common thing for humans to have. US, UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Japan, China – to list just a few countries which have a lengthy history of it, there are many more–and some will question whether some of the countries I have listed have really moved beyond it. (I'll even say my own country, Australia, has a decent amount of it – even if the form it takes looks rather different from that of some other countries.) > 'Security Council' is not that important. > Nukes are actually not important > Their 'former empire' is not relevant I think all these things tie into national attitudes and culture. Many Russians remember when their country was one of the most powerful countries in the world (at the height of the Cold War, arguably second only to the United States, and the Soviets even managed to beat the Americans at some things); even for those too young to remember it, it was a large chunk of the life of their parents/grandparents. The degree to which their country has fallen is rather obvious to all, and things like the permanent UN Security Council membership and the nuclear arsenal serve as enduring reminders of that past "glory". Many Russians have no interest in going back to the "glory" days, but a substantial chunk of the population do, and there are many more who may be susceptible to propaganda promoting the idea – and that makes them open to supporting, or at least not overtly opposing, government policies aimed at doing that. By contrast, there are many other countries who either have never had that kind of history, or else for which the days of "imperial glory" are much more distant, well beyond the memory of the living–and citizens of those other countries are far less likely to acquiesce in imperial designs, especially when those designs start to impose costs on everyday life.
  - thinkindie 5y ago
    also - any French or British imperialist intentions toward any territory in Europe are gone since Napoleon (and UK had none toward Europe). At the same time, Soviet Union, which just took over the zarist empire, only ended 30 years ago. You can totally see from Russian propaganda that they are still looking at re-instating Soviet Union/zar empire. I see this as pure soviet/zar/russian/nationalist revenge.
    - wongarsu 5y ago
      Napoleon died in 1821. For French ambitions on German territory alone there was the Rhine crisis of 1840 [1], the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 [2], followed by French Revanchism [3] over the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, which they regained in WWI with the Treaty of Versailles. In 1923 there was the Occupation of the Ruhr [4]. Then in the aftermath of WWII France tried to take the Saar Protectorate, but with the EU slowly taking shape with the formation of the ECSC and the EEC instead a referendum happened and the territory went back to Germany. Maybe notions of owning all of Europe ceased with Napoleon, but France trying to extend its borders Eastwards was happening right until the EU took shape. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine_crisis 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Protectorate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Protectorate
      - martin_a 5y ago
        > but France trying to extend its borders Eastwards was happening right until the EU took shape. Same could be said for Germany and West expansions. Thankfully a thing of the past right now.
      - thinkindie 5y ago
        We are talking about a couple of regions that historically have been through both ruling. Napoleon occupied or subjugated entire countries by installing puppet regimes.
  - b112 5y ago
    Russia has a lot of special characteristics which most other European states lack I once heard this stressed very strongly, from a historical, cultural, and political perspective. Russia is not European. If one considers the mindset which allowed this war to happen, and the politics, the fascism, this seems quite true.
    - darebak 5y ago
      The largest country in Europe is not European? The EU doesn't have the monopoly on being European or European values.
    - freeflight 5y ago
      Europe is not even a geographical continent, its just one part of the Eurasian continent. Which means the majority of Europe/Asia distinctions are drawn around economic, cultural and particularly political borders, none of which are natural but to a degree rather arbitrarily defined by humans depending on their particular agenda. In that context "othering", up to a scale of denying whole nation states their geographical location and cultural influences, has never lead to better and more peaceful relations, quite the opposite.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > superpower with a massive multi-decade empire only 3-4 decades ago We’ve definitively put the final nail in the coffin on this one. Russia is a nuclear power. But it’s no longer a great power, let alone a superpower.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  I think Russia is the wrong place to look for what European countries will and won’t do. On the whole the EU project, and the approach of tight economic ties across the continent has been a huge success. Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. Before the EU and the drive to economic integration, Europe had been in a state of almost perpetual war between the different states. Even today the economic integration has made war between most European states unthinkable. Nobody is worried about the U.K. declaring war on France or vice-versa, something that almost habitual before the 21st century. Russia is the anomaly here, the one case where economic integration didn’t prevent war. But just because the approach isn’t 100% effective, doesn’t mean it’s worthless.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - unmole 5y ago
    > Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. Yeah, except for the wars in: - Cyprus - Yugoslavia - Georgia - Moldova
    - freeflight 5y ago
      Which is actually a pretty good track-record compared to back to back literal world wars, with a very long period of pretty much every state waring with each other before that.
  - hjoldic 5y ago
  - throw-ru-938 5y ago
    > Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. You forgot the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s.
    - darebak 5y ago
      And those countries were very much economically interdependent.
watwut 5y ago
European countries were super naive to what Russia is becoming. Or rather more plausibly, willingly not looking there, because money.
- megous 5y ago
  Yep. The liekly difference is that it may work between democratic countries that don't want to wage war between each other, but likely not with militaristic dictatorship, that wants to wage a war (since lowering the standards of living for the subjects is mostly a problem only in democracies, because people elect the leadership). Relationships go both ways, and so far it looks like neither side has a reason to sever them quickly, despite the war (Russia wants the money, democratic governments want to be elected next time). Severing is very gradual allowing for gradual adjustment on both sides. No huge shock. No huge deterrent. And I don't get the purpose of the interdependency in case of direct attack either, with the attacker being the supplier. Attacking country cutting you off from significant portion of fossil fuels before the attack, will not make your defense any easier.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  Western shills for Russia were super naive to what Russia became, I am old enough to remember March 2022 "You dont understand you are just believing the MSM NATO globalist propaganda; Putin isnt a mad man and there there is no way he will invade the Ukraine, the troops are just doing exercises on the border."
  - verytrivial 5y ago
    Oh, they knew. They were just being casually traitorous.
    - skissane 5y ago
      I don't think I'm a "Russian shill", but honestly I was sceptical about suggestions that Russia would launch a wholesale invasion of Ukraine until it actually happened. I thought Putin was just bluffing and sabre-rattling. Given how the war has been going for Russia, I suspect Putin now wishes that people like me had been right.
xiphias2 5y ago
While this is true for the communities (people) themselves, a lot of us in Hungary who love EU learned languages and moved west, and practically lost our right to vote because of how the voting system is designed, even though we are still Hungarians officially. This allowed Orban to get authoritian power that is now undefeatable.
- leadingthenet 5y ago
  > and practically lost our right to vote because of how the voting system is designed Yet, I voted (abroad) in the last elections just fine? You do have to register early nowadays, whereas it used to be trivial to cast a vote previously, but I'm genuinely unsure what you base a claim such as "we practically lost our right to vote" on. In addition, several democratic countries disallow voting for expatriates (e.g. Ireland de jure / Israel de facto). > This allowed Orban to get authoritian power that is now undefeatable. At no point during the last few decades have elections been swayed by votes cast outside of Hungary.
  - xiphias2 5y ago
    Good for you, but even Orban supporters accept that the voting system is biased, they just like it that way. As for me voting would have been too hard, so I donated money for the opposition to buy ads, but of course it was no match for the advertising budget Fidesz has at this point.
    - leadingthenet 5y ago
      That may be, but now you’ve changed your argument from an obviously ridiculous claim such as “we practically lost our right to vote” to the vastly less fatalistic (and much more accurate) “the system advantages the incumbent”. That’s fine, and I agree it’s an issue, but maybe tone it down a bit for next time. I’m used to this tone from Hungarians both online and in real life, but I’d rather not allow such false impressions to seep into the wider discourse. There’s enough “Poles and Hungarians bad” narratives going around without us having to add fuel to the fire.
Ciantic 5y ago
It wasn't totally stupid plan, but it doesn't work if one party ceases to be interested in economics more than other grandiose plans. The idea that interdependence leads to less wars is very old one. I was reading The Guns of August which tells about beginning of first World War, it refers to book released in 1910 called "the Great Illusion" [1]. I have not read it, but the book became best seller just before first World War, I'll quote from Wikipedia here: > In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous." For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long... > According to Angell, the economic interdependence between industrial countries would be "the real guarantor of the good behavior of one state to another"... Economics matter, but if the leadership isn't made of business caring people, or is isolated like it now looks like, then interdependence isn't happening regardless of business ties between companies. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
- srg0 5y ago
  > It wasn't totally stupid plan, but it doesn't work if one party ceases to be interested in economics more than other grandiose plans. It doesn't work if the other party is just one person (or few people) in power for over twenty years, and all open society institutions in that other country have been systematically suppressed. What's a chance that the same person is capable and willing to represent all possible economic and society interests? > The Great Illusion Publication date: 1909; 1933. Interesting. The idea stood the test of time.
7952 5y ago
I wonder if that plan is actually backed up with evidence from history. Because there seems to be a ridiculous number of counter examples. And close connection seems to increase the possible range of casus beli compared to more distant countries.

fosk 5y ago

This war has proven that as long as national interests are strong enough, those economical ties most likely won't last..which is a scary precedent for Europe in general.

skissane 5y ago
Russia has a lot of special characteristics which most other European states lack: (1) huge population and area; (2) permanent member of UN Security Council; (3) accepted nuclear weapons state with one of world’s largest nuclear arsenals; (4) superpower with a massive multi-decade empire only 3-4 decades ago. Few other European states have any or all of these characteristics; UK and France probably come the closest, yet the idea of either of them emulating Russia seems rather implausible. In short, just because the strategy failed for Russia, doesn’t really disprove the strategy in general, given Russia is such a special case.
- lnsru 5y ago
  Huge population!? Not even twice bigger than Germany. Area is huge. As natural resources lying all over the place. They all could live like princes in Dubai, but made a different choice. They have nuclear weapons for sure, but I wouldn’t like to speculate about their maintenance and availability.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    > Huge population!? Not even twice bigger than Germany. They can easily fix that by annexing former SSSR territories (about 230 million)
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      They don't really want to be re-annexed though. Probably never did in the first place either, but when do you really have a choice?
      - ithkuil 5y ago
        Even if Russia doesn't actually annex other former SSSR countries, many Russian nationalists still think of them as being an extension of Russia, a part of the empire, and thus in their worldview Russia is clearly more than twice bigger than Germany
  - varjag 5y ago
    Germany has the biggest population in EU, so twice of that is rather huge.
  - skissane 5y ago
    > Huge population!? Not even twice bigger than Germany Germany also has a huge population, especially by European standards, even if somewhat less huge than Russia’s. Both Germany and Russia are outliers, being in some ways far from the European average. What makes Russia much more distinctive, is in how many different ways it is an outlier - arguably in a fair few more ways than contemporary Germany is, which makes it a much bigger outlier overall. > They have nuclear weapons for sure, but I wouldn’t like to speculate about their maintenance and availability. For a decent-sized nation state, nuclear weapons aren’t actually that hard to manufacture and maintain and deliver, especially if they aim at basic functionality and aren’t trying to be on the cutting edge. The biggest obstacles for most such countries are (1) the rest of the world will try to stop them through sanctions, clandestine operations, even military action; (2) if you don’t have domestic uranium deposits, it is very hard to buy uranium for military use, all major sellers will insist you promise to use it for civilian purposes only and submit to regular inspections to prove that. As an accepted nuclear weapons state, Russia doesn’t have to worry about (1); Russia also has substantial uranium reserves and is one of the world’s leading uranium exporters, so it doesn’t have to worry about (2) either. So I think Russia’s nuclear arsenal is likely to be reliable and usable.
    - aforwardslash 5y ago
      Maintenance of nuclear weapons (specially if old design) is actually very expensive - probably more than their manufacturing cost. Russia claims to have a huge stockpile, but their PIB is at the level of Spain (that has like 40% of russia's population). There is a huge disproportion between the military might Russia claims yo have, and their actual capacity of paying for it. If on paper it doesn't add up, the reality we've been seeing in Ukraine is even worse - even cheap stuff like comms are notoriously unreliable.
      - skissane 5y ago
        I can't really debate the ease of maintaining nuclear weapons with you–our impressions are different, it would be great to find some reliable sources to objectively judge those impressions against, but I don't know of any, unless you do. > Russia claims to have a huge stockpile, but their PIB is at the level of Spain (that has like 40% of russia's population). I was confused by this–what is PIB? Then I realised you are probably a French-speaker, and PIB means produit intérieur brut, which is the French equivalent to what we call in English, GDP.
- dainiusse 5y ago
  It is also number one country of corruption (not that corruption doesn't exist elsewhere as well)
- jollybean 5y ago
  I don't think those are it. 1) Massive Natural Resources (carbon fuels) which mean they don't have to do anything productive and can make huge money. 2) Totalitarian with Kleptocracy. The population accepts it over anything else, Putin keeps all competitors at bay. This means a single cabal can make big decisions. 3) Cultural Chauvinism. 30% are 'totally cool' with wiping out their neighbours in the vein of some cooked up rubbish. Even when they know it's 'cooked up'. I think they are definitely product I don't think they see themselves as 'ubermench' I think it's a kind of 'superiority from an inferiority' complex. They also lack empathy compared to most other places, not on an individual level, but on a cultural level. There are no leaders who speak of hope, togetherness, prosperity - those are viewed as 'weak'. (Paradoxically their 'strong' people are just incompetent killers). So with Money, Control, and Cultural Chauvinism - you have potentiality for big things. Like war. 'Security Council' is not that important. Nukes are actually not important - but they do provide an 'umbrella' of cover, in that, NATO would already be in Ukraine otherwise. So they can be decisive. Their 'former empire' is not relevant other than in the jingoistic psyche of Putin and some of the plebes.
  - skissane 5y ago
    > 3) Cultural Chauvinism A very common thing for humans to have. US, UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Japan, China – to list just a few countries which have a lengthy history of it, there are many more–and some will question whether some of the countries I have listed have really moved beyond it. (I'll even say my own country, Australia, has a decent amount of it – even if the form it takes looks rather different from that of some other countries.) > 'Security Council' is not that important. > Nukes are actually not important > Their 'former empire' is not relevant I think all these things tie into national attitudes and culture. Many Russians remember when their country was one of the most powerful countries in the world (at the height of the Cold War, arguably second only to the United States, and the Soviets even managed to beat the Americans at some things); even for those too young to remember it, it was a large chunk of the life of their parents/grandparents. The degree to which their country has fallen is rather obvious to all, and things like the permanent UN Security Council membership and the nuclear arsenal serve as enduring reminders of that past "glory". Many Russians have no interest in going back to the "glory" days, but a substantial chunk of the population do, and there are many more who may be susceptible to propaganda promoting the idea – and that makes them open to supporting, or at least not overtly opposing, government policies aimed at doing that. By contrast, there are many other countries who either have never had that kind of history, or else for which the days of "imperial glory" are much more distant, well beyond the memory of the living–and citizens of those other countries are far less likely to acquiesce in imperial designs, especially when those designs start to impose costs on everyday life.
- thinkindie 5y ago
  also - any French or British imperialist intentions toward any territory in Europe are gone since Napoleon (and UK had none toward Europe). At the same time, Soviet Union, which just took over the zarist empire, only ended 30 years ago. You can totally see from Russian propaganda that they are still looking at re-instating Soviet Union/zar empire. I see this as pure soviet/zar/russian/nationalist revenge.
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    Napoleon died in 1821. For French ambitions on German territory alone there was the Rhine crisis of 1840 [1], the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 [2], followed by French Revanchism [3] over the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, which they regained in WWI with the Treaty of Versailles. In 1923 there was the Occupation of the Ruhr [4]. Then in the aftermath of WWII France tried to take the Saar Protectorate, but with the EU slowly taking shape with the formation of the ECSC and the EEC instead a referendum happened and the territory went back to Germany. Maybe notions of owning all of Europe ceased with Napoleon, but France trying to extend its borders Eastwards was happening right until the EU took shape. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine_crisis 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Protectorate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Protectorate
    - martin_a 5y ago
      > but France trying to extend its borders Eastwards was happening right until the EU took shape. Same could be said for Germany and West expansions. Thankfully a thing of the past right now.
    - thinkindie 5y ago
      We are talking about a couple of regions that historically have been through both ruling. Napoleon occupied or subjugated entire countries by installing puppet regimes.
- b112 5y ago
  Russia has a lot of special characteristics which most other European states lack I once heard this stressed very strongly, from a historical, cultural, and political perspective. Russia is not European. If one considers the mindset which allowed this war to happen, and the politics, the fascism, this seems quite true.
  - darebak 5y ago
    The largest country in Europe is not European? The EU doesn't have the monopoly on being European or European values.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    Europe is not even a geographical continent, its just one part of the Eurasian continent. Which means the majority of Europe/Asia distinctions are drawn around economic, cultural and particularly political borders, none of which are natural but to a degree rather arbitrarily defined by humans depending on their particular agenda. In that context "othering", up to a scale of denying whole nation states their geographical location and cultural influences, has never lead to better and more peaceful relations, quite the opposite.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > superpower with a massive multi-decade empire only 3-4 decades ago We’ve definitively put the final nail in the coffin on this one. Russia is a nuclear power. But it’s no longer a great power, let alone a superpower.
avianlyric 5y ago
I think Russia is the wrong place to look for what European countries will and won’t do. On the whole the EU project, and the approach of tight economic ties across the continent has been a huge success. Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. Before the EU and the drive to economic integration, Europe had been in a state of almost perpetual war between the different states. Even today the economic integration has made war between most European states unthinkable. Nobody is worried about the U.K. declaring war on France or vice-versa, something that almost habitual before the 21st century. Russia is the anomaly here, the one case where economic integration didn’t prevent war. But just because the approach isn’t 100% effective, doesn’t mean it’s worthless.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- unmole 5y ago
  > Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. Yeah, except for the wars in: - Cyprus - Yugoslavia - Georgia - Moldova
  - freeflight 5y ago
    Which is actually a pretty good track-record compared to back to back literal world wars, with a very long period of pretty much every state waring with each other before that.
- hjoldic 5y ago
- throw-ru-938 5y ago
  > Until Ukraine there hasn’t been a war in Europe for 75 years. You forgot the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s.
  - darebak 5y ago
    And those countries were very much economically interdependent.

watwut 5y ago

European countries were super naive to what Russia is becoming. Or rather more plausibly, willingly not looking there, because money.

megous 5y ago
Yep. The liekly difference is that it may work between democratic countries that don't want to wage war between each other, but likely not with militaristic dictatorship, that wants to wage a war (since lowering the standards of living for the subjects is mostly a problem only in democracies, because people elect the leadership). Relationships go both ways, and so far it looks like neither side has a reason to sever them quickly, despite the war (Russia wants the money, democratic governments want to be elected next time). Severing is very gradual allowing for gradual adjustment on both sides. No huge shock. No huge deterrent. And I don't get the purpose of the interdependency in case of direct attack either, with the attacker being the supplier. Attacking country cutting you off from significant portion of fossil fuels before the attack, will not make your defense any easier.
shapefrog 5y ago
Western shills for Russia were super naive to what Russia became, I am old enough to remember March 2022 "You dont understand you are just believing the MSM NATO globalist propaganda; Putin isnt a mad man and there there is no way he will invade the Ukraine, the troops are just doing exercises on the border."
- verytrivial 5y ago
  Oh, they knew. They were just being casually traitorous.
  - skissane 5y ago
    I don't think I'm a "Russian shill", but honestly I was sceptical about suggestions that Russia would launch a wholesale invasion of Ukraine until it actually happened. I thought Putin was just bluffing and sabre-rattling. Given how the war has been going for Russia, I suspect Putin now wishes that people like me had been right.

xiphias2 5y ago

While this is true for the communities (people) themselves, a lot of us in Hungary who love EU learned languages and moved west, and practically lost our right to vote because of how the voting system is designed, even though we are still Hungarians officially. This allowed Orban to get authoritian power that is now undefeatable.

leadingthenet 5y ago
> and practically lost our right to vote because of how the voting system is designed Yet, I voted (abroad) in the last elections just fine? You do have to register early nowadays, whereas it used to be trivial to cast a vote previously, but I'm genuinely unsure what you base a claim such as "we practically lost our right to vote" on. In addition, several democratic countries disallow voting for expatriates (e.g. Ireland de jure / Israel de facto). > This allowed Orban to get authoritian power that is now undefeatable. At no point during the last few decades have elections been swayed by votes cast outside of Hungary.
- xiphias2 5y ago
  Good for you, but even Orban supporters accept that the voting system is biased, they just like it that way. As for me voting would have been too hard, so I donated money for the opposition to buy ads, but of course it was no match for the advertising budget Fidesz has at this point.
  - leadingthenet 5y ago
    That may be, but now you’ve changed your argument from an obviously ridiculous claim such as “we practically lost our right to vote” to the vastly less fatalistic (and much more accurate) “the system advantages the incumbent”. That’s fine, and I agree it’s an issue, but maybe tone it down a bit for next time. I’m used to this tone from Hungarians both online and in real life, but I’d rather not allow such false impressions to seep into the wider discourse. There’s enough “Poles and Hungarians bad” narratives going around without us having to add fuel to the fire.

Ciantic 5y ago

It wasn't totally stupid plan, but it doesn't work if one party ceases to be interested in economics more than other grandiose plans. The idea that interdependence leads to less wars is very old one. I was reading The Guns of August which tells about beginning of first World War, it refers to book released in 1910 called "the Great Illusion" [1]. I have not read it, but the book became best seller just before first World War, I'll quote from Wikipedia here: > In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous." For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long... > According to Angell, the economic interdependence between industrial countries would be "the real guarantor of the good behavior of one state to another"... Economics matter, but if the leadership isn't made of business caring people, or is isolated like it now looks like, then interdependence isn't happening regardless of business ties between companies. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

srg0 5y ago
> It wasn't totally stupid plan, but it doesn't work if one party ceases to be interested in economics more than other grandiose plans. It doesn't work if the other party is just one person (or few people) in power for over twenty years, and all open society institutions in that other country have been systematically suppressed. What's a chance that the same person is capable and willing to represent all possible economic and society interests? > The Great Illusion Publication date: 1909; 1933. Interesting. The idea stood the test of time.

7952 5y ago

I wonder if that plan is actually backed up with evidence from history. Because there seems to be a ridiculous number of counter examples. And close connection seems to increase the possible range of casus beli compared to more distant countries.