4 ms·

It's about time! In my opinion Europe was a bit asleep about the realities of the world. Very grateful to all what the US is doing, but in the end this is a wa

It's about time! In my opinion Europe was a bit asleep about the realities of the world. Very grateful to all what the US is doing, but in the end this is a war within Europe, and we must know we can't always count on others to be the main contributor of something that is happening "in our neighbourhood". Also, Europe must really start to consider itself as a world power. Maybe I'm too paranoid, but the democracy within US seems very fragile to me (the 2 party system, all the extreme nutcases that live within). The Ukraine war has shown us how important it is to defend democracy within and outside of our own borders. And that 'power' cannot always be only manifested through diplomacy.

atdrummond 3y ago
Ukraine is in no way a functioning democracy.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- koonsolo 3y ago
  Their elections were democratic (if not, please provide some evidence). And secondly, they were well on their way to keep improving and follow the path of the other ex-soviet states that are now part of the EU.
  - atdrummond 3y ago
    As someone who has spent many months in Ukraine since the late 2000s, even the last election was not what I would call “democratic” even if I think the truly preferred candidate won. You would be shocked at how often votes are outright bought by candidates and their supporters and how much strong arming is done to ensure certain areas vote for a specific party. This doesn’t mean I support Russia - I live in a border country (Estonia) myself. [1] https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/20/exhibition-highlights-vote-buying-in-ukraine-as-country-goes-to-polls https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/20/exhibition-highlights-vo... [2] https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10219 https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10219
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Compared to Russia however they are a model of democracy, and that is one of the reasons this invasion happened in the first place. The last thing Putin wants on his doorstep is a country that is very much like Russia in some respects and yet one that can function as a (even if somewhat flawed) democracy.
- thatwasunusual 3y ago
  They're not perfect, for sure, but I highly doubt they will become more democratic if Russia wins the war.
- megapolitics 3y ago
  It’s a flawed democracy, but it’s on a consistent upward trajectory.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Unfortunately not, they're mostly on a downward trend (I'm sure the war and Russian interference doesn't help, but it is what it is). Still better now (5.42) than Russia today (2.28) or even back in 2006 (Russia was 5.02, though back then Ukraine was 6.94). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
Yoric 3y ago
I agree that the democracy within US is currently in crisis. Not just in the US, mind you – several countries in Europe, but also India, Israel, Turkey, what I've read described as the "putsch belt" in Central Africa, ... Hopefully, these crises will eventually resolve themselves, but there is no guarantee of that. If anything, the climate and energy crises, as well as the war in Ukraine, are going to make things harder on democracies. That being said, Europe has never stopped considering itself as a world power. Until now, it aimed mostly for soft power (for a definition of soft power that included having standing armies in a number of African countries). Shifting from soft power to military power is very dangerous, because this has a strong potential to escalate into actual armed conflict. With Russia, of course, but also possibly with Turkey, or China, or the US (in case authoritarianism wins on either side of the Atlantic), ... As much as possible, I'd prefer soft power. It's not as innocent as it sounds, but it makes fewer victims.
- nickpp 3y ago
  Europe's mistake was considering Russia part of Europe. Russia is an imperial power part of only the past...
- koonsolo 3y ago
  > As much as possible, I'd prefer soft power. It's not as innocent as it sounds, but it makes fewer victims. I fully agree with that one. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't have a stick behind the door. (local expression, don't how how this translates into English ;))
  - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
    >> But that doesn't mean you shouldn't have a stick behind the door. (local expression, don't how how this translates into English ;)) "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." --George Orwell "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." --George Washington "Speak softly and carry a big stick" --Theodore Roosevelt
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> It's about time! In my opinion Europe was a bit asleep about the realities of the world. That's an understatement. Imagine if the US hadn't helped at all. Would Europe even be up to the challenge? Europe really needs to get its act together and be less dependent on the US.
ben_w 3y ago
Europe has 1, 2 or 3* of the UN permanent security council seats; but it's not yet a country in its own right. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the permanent seats are stupid and shouldn't be so: China and the USA currently still make sense, but Russia shouldn't have taken over the USSR seat when the USSR ceased to exist; likewise neither the UK nor France can really justify that position since approximately the Suez crisis, and the vacuums they left behind with the end of Empire means nobody's really representing Africa, the Middle East, nor the Indian subcontinent at that level. I think South America is also somewhat unenthusiastic about being considered the USA's back yard in this context. * depending on if this is shorthand for "the EU" like the article (1, France), "western Europe" (2, +UK), or "continental" (3, +Russia).
- abstractbeliefs 3y ago
  >I'm increasingly of the opinion that the permanent seats are stupid and shouldn't be so >a whole bunch of reasons why the permanent seats aren't representative You're spot on that they aren't representative of the world's interests, but that's because this isn't what the security council is really for. Taught in geopolitical terms, the UN is the latest iteration of a number of bodies that seek to protect a small alliance's interests in the long term. The UN was founded by the winners of WWII, in the brief moment of time they could credibly claim that they represented the broader world's interests. Since then, the WWII allies - US/UK/France/Russia/China - have maintained their disproportionate positions to protect their own interests. The Security council exists for them - it is the only body that can pass legally binding resolutions, it gatekeeps access to the general assembly, and those 5 golden keyholders can individually veto any other UN action. These kind of bodies (UN, League of Nations, Peace of Westphalia) etc are often couched in ideals and often do have sub-bodies who do excellent work, as the UN does, but in reality, at the highest levels, are actually consider the spoils of war: the right to dictate your position as a lasting member of extraterritorial governance and protect your doctrinal and national interests.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Ah, thanks for the insight; I don't think that cynically by default, but what you say rings true.
jacquesm 3y ago
Europe was - and probably still is - very tired of war. Effectively we're still in recovery from World War II and this is something that countries that have not seen major wars fought on their land have a hard time understanding. I think what powered the EU through the last 70 years or so is that I think they - and me! - truly believed that we could outgrow war as a concept. Putin has shown that to be an illusion so now - reluctantly - the EU is gearing up for war again. But a reluctant fighter isn't necessarily a bad one, just one that knows what is at stake. I'm pretty sure that given the very vivid memories of WWII (some of which are still in living memory) that there will be plenty of unity in going after those that made it so.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

atdrummond 3y ago

Ukraine is in no way a functioning democracy.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
koonsolo 3y ago
Their elections were democratic (if not, please provide some evidence). And secondly, they were well on their way to keep improving and follow the path of the other ex-soviet states that are now part of the EU.
- atdrummond 3y ago
  As someone who has spent many months in Ukraine since the late 2000s, even the last election was not what I would call “democratic” even if I think the truly preferred candidate won. You would be shocked at how often votes are outright bought by candidates and their supporters and how much strong arming is done to ensure certain areas vote for a specific party. This doesn’t mean I support Russia - I live in a border country (Estonia) myself. [1] https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/20/exhibition-highlights-vote-buying-in-ukraine-as-country-goes-to-polls https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/20/exhibition-highlights-vo... [2] https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10219 https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10219
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Compared to Russia however they are a model of democracy, and that is one of the reasons this invasion happened in the first place. The last thing Putin wants on his doorstep is a country that is very much like Russia in some respects and yet one that can function as a (even if somewhat flawed) democracy.
thatwasunusual 3y ago
They're not perfect, for sure, but I highly doubt they will become more democratic if Russia wins the war.
megapolitics 3y ago
It’s a flawed democracy, but it’s on a consistent upward trajectory.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Unfortunately not, they're mostly on a downward trend (I'm sure the war and Russian interference doesn't help, but it is what it is). Still better now (5.42) than Russia today (2.28) or even back in 2006 (Russia was 5.02, though back then Ukraine was 6.94). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

Yoric 3y ago

I agree that the democracy within US is currently in crisis. Not just in the US, mind you – several countries in Europe, but also India, Israel, Turkey, what I've read described as the "putsch belt" in Central Africa, ... Hopefully, these crises will eventually resolve themselves, but there is no guarantee of that. If anything, the climate and energy crises, as well as the war in Ukraine, are going to make things harder on democracies. That being said, Europe has never stopped considering itself as a world power. Until now, it aimed mostly for soft power (for a definition of soft power that included having standing armies in a number of African countries). Shifting from soft power to military power is very dangerous, because this has a strong potential to escalate into actual armed conflict. With Russia, of course, but also possibly with Turkey, or China, or the US (in case authoritarianism wins on either side of the Atlantic), ... As much as possible, I'd prefer soft power. It's not as innocent as it sounds, but it makes fewer victims.

nickpp 3y ago
Europe's mistake was considering Russia part of Europe. Russia is an imperial power part of only the past...
koonsolo 3y ago
> As much as possible, I'd prefer soft power. It's not as innocent as it sounds, but it makes fewer victims. I fully agree with that one. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't have a stick behind the door. (local expression, don't how how this translates into English ;))
- thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
  >> But that doesn't mean you shouldn't have a stick behind the door. (local expression, don't how how this translates into English ;)) "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." --George Orwell "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." --George Washington "Speak softly and carry a big stick" --Theodore Roosevelt

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

> It's about time! In my opinion Europe was a bit asleep about the realities of the world. That's an understatement. Imagine if the US hadn't helped at all. Would Europe even be up to the challenge? Europe really needs to get its act together and be less dependent on the US.

ben_w 3y ago

Europe has 1, 2 or 3* of the UN permanent security council seats; but it's not yet a country in its own right. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the permanent seats are stupid and shouldn't be so: China and the USA currently still make sense, but Russia shouldn't have taken over the USSR seat when the USSR ceased to exist; likewise neither the UK nor France can really justify that position since approximately the Suez crisis, and the vacuums they left behind with the end of Empire means nobody's really representing Africa, the Middle East, nor the Indian subcontinent at that level. I think South America is also somewhat unenthusiastic about being considered the USA's back yard in this context. * depending on if this is shorthand for "the EU" like the article (1, France), "western Europe" (2, +UK), or "continental" (3, +Russia).

abstractbeliefs 3y ago
>I'm increasingly of the opinion that the permanent seats are stupid and shouldn't be so >a whole bunch of reasons why the permanent seats aren't representative You're spot on that they aren't representative of the world's interests, but that's because this isn't what the security council is really for. Taught in geopolitical terms, the UN is the latest iteration of a number of bodies that seek to protect a small alliance's interests in the long term. The UN was founded by the winners of WWII, in the brief moment of time they could credibly claim that they represented the broader world's interests. Since then, the WWII allies - US/UK/France/Russia/China - have maintained their disproportionate positions to protect their own interests. The Security council exists for them - it is the only body that can pass legally binding resolutions, it gatekeeps access to the general assembly, and those 5 golden keyholders can individually veto any other UN action. These kind of bodies (UN, League of Nations, Peace of Westphalia) etc are often couched in ideals and often do have sub-bodies who do excellent work, as the UN does, but in reality, at the highest levels, are actually consider the spoils of war: the right to dictate your position as a lasting member of extraterritorial governance and protect your doctrinal and national interests.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Ah, thanks for the insight; I don't think that cynically by default, but what you say rings true.

jacquesm 3y ago

Europe was - and probably still is - very tired of war. Effectively we're still in recovery from World War II and this is something that countries that have not seen major wars fought on their land have a hard time understanding. I think what powered the EU through the last 70 years or so is that I think they - and me! - truly believed that we could outgrow war as a concept. Putin has shown that to be an illusion so now - reluctantly - the EU is gearing up for war again. But a reluctant fighter isn't necessarily a bad one, just one that knows what is at stake. I'm pretty sure that given the very vivid memories of WWII (some of which are still in living memory) that there will be plenty of unity in going after those that made it so.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]