4 ms·

It was reasonable not to see Russia as enemy. It was well integrated into European trade and some political structures (PACE, NATO-Russia council etc) and there

It was reasonable not to see Russia as enemy. It was well integrated into European trade and some political structures (PACE, NATO-Russia council etc) and there were even talks about visa-free travel between Russia and EU. What went wrong was the glacial speed of integration, letting the nationalist sentiment and disappointment in West grow. Post-WWII Europe was pacified through a political union between Germany and France, post-Cold War Europe should have done it too. Putin could be another Orban in the worst case.

manmal 3y ago
Did you mean someone else than Orban?
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  Name another enfant terrible in EU who undermines democracy but does not go too far to be expelled.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    Scholz. Modern Russia is far better at political subversion than it is at outright conquest. Every country in Europe has captive politicians and far-right parties being funded and enabled by Moscow. Like Germany's AfD which - as a matter of record - has been cultivated, promoted, and steered in a pro-Russian direction. Scholz is clearly playing the same game, obstructing aid to Ukraine in every possible way. Geert Wilders in NL makes anti-Russian noises in public while threatening to cut support to Ukraine. Portugal has Chega, France has National Rally and Le Pen, the UK had Brexit and Boris Johnson - who installed the son of a top KGB operative to the House of Lords. The US has Trump and Maga. And so on. Every single one of these has proven Russian links. Ukraine is just a distraction. The real war has been happening elsewhere. Many leaders - and most voters - still haven't realised what's happening. And should Le Pen win in France and Trump in the US, that would leave the UK's one active nuclear submarine as Europe's sole protection against Russian nuclear threats.
    - holoduke 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Absolutely each and every one of those is far right, borderline fascist and getting more so by the day. There is plenty of evidence of Russian funds bankrolling these (and others), no need to suggest this is a conspiracy. What you believe doesn't really matter.
        holoduke 3y ago
        [flagged]
        jacquesm 3y ago
        And Hitler was a vegetarian. What Geert Wilders yells to get votes has zero binding on what he is able to accomplish or really intends to do.
        holoduke 3y ago
        You should read the party objectives. State media is often a bit biased and even in the west you can fell victim to propoganda.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        You're hilarious. Geert Wilders is a populist, not a politician. The party objectives are Geert Wilders' dog whistles and promises to the gullible, it isn't a serious political party even though it has attracted the largest voting bloc simply because there is no governance structure in place, the party is Geert Wilders, the rest is just window dressing. The idea that 'even in the west[sic] you can fell[sic] victim to propoganda[sic]' is true but it has nothing to do with my view of Wilders, the PVV or the general Dutch political situation. And as for state media, guess what GW wants to get rid of?
  - SEJeff 3y ago
    I mean in France, you've got Marine LePen. In the Netherlands you've got Geert Wilders. Robert Fico wanted to take Slovakia back to a past when oligarchs dominated the state. PiS wanted to turn poland into the arsenal of the EU and got a really good start on it, etc. Nationalism is having a renaissance since Trump won in 2020, but it turns out overall to be a terrible way to run a country.
    - wonderwonder 3y ago
      How are they undermining democracy though? You may not like their politics but what have they done to say they are anti democratic?
      - n4r9 3y ago
        Things like a strong and independent media, legal system, parliament and police force are crucial to democracy. It can be justifiable to argue that someone is anti-democratic if they advocate a narrative that erodes trust in any of these.
        wonderwonder 3y ago
        That's an interesting idea. Covers both political parties, with the left undermining trust in the police, and Supreme Court. The right in the FBI and journalism.
        n4r9 3y ago
        It's context-dependent, but that's the basic idea. In the UK for example, we currently have quite a right-wing government in power, which is: * Undermining our Supreme Court by trying to force through a migrant deportation scheme which the court has ruled unlawful * Eroding the Police Force's independence by claiming they are biased in their approach to protests * Trying to defund and delegitimise the BBC It might be because I'm fairly left wing myself, but I think you have go pretty far into authoritarian-left territory (think Stalinism) before you start becoming seriously anti-democratic. Before that point most leftists are pretty keen on giving power and choice to ordinary people and communities.
dralley 3y ago
It was not reasonable after 2014. Nordstream 2 was after 2014.
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Fundamentally what actually went the worst was the absolutely awful way that capitalist market systems were, on the whole, rolled out in the eastern bloc in the 90s. Poverty, corruption, and massive wealth disparity were the results. And into the chaos, strongmen came in, and promised and gave some stability.
- hkpack 3y ago
  Late USSR was not better at all in these countries.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    It depends. Consumption standards weren't higher, but people had stable income, low-ish crime and industrial economy. Of course it was also untenable.
xdennis 3y ago
> It was reasonable not to see Russia as enemy. That's naive. Russia allowed Germany to unify, but not Romania. It was very clear to eastern Europeans that they needed to join NATO before Russia can attack them again. Ever since the 1500s Russia has always sought to expand under the excuse of being encircled. Listen to any Russian propagandist now and they sound no different to ones from hundreds of years ago. They say Russia needs natural bothers. Well, there are no borders until the Carpathian mountains. If they do conquer the Carpathians, they'll just move the goal posts, just like they didn't stop at the Ural mountains. It's naive to not see Russia as the enemy because it has always been so.

manmal 3y ago

Did you mean someone else than Orban?

ivan_gammel 3y ago
Name another enfant terrible in EU who undermines democracy but does not go too far to be expelled.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  Scholz. Modern Russia is far better at political subversion than it is at outright conquest. Every country in Europe has captive politicians and far-right parties being funded and enabled by Moscow. Like Germany's AfD which - as a matter of record - has been cultivated, promoted, and steered in a pro-Russian direction. Scholz is clearly playing the same game, obstructing aid to Ukraine in every possible way. Geert Wilders in NL makes anti-Russian noises in public while threatening to cut support to Ukraine. Portugal has Chega, France has National Rally and Le Pen, the UK had Brexit and Boris Johnson - who installed the son of a top KGB operative to the House of Lords. The US has Trump and Maga. And so on. Every single one of these has proven Russian links. Ukraine is just a distraction. The real war has been happening elsewhere. Many leaders - and most voters - still haven't realised what's happening. And should Le Pen win in France and Trump in the US, that would leave the UK's one active nuclear submarine as Europe's sole protection against Russian nuclear threats.
  - holoduke 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Absolutely each and every one of those is far right, borderline fascist and getting more so by the day. There is plenty of evidence of Russian funds bankrolling these (and others), no need to suggest this is a conspiracy. What you believe doesn't really matter.
      - holoduke 3y ago
        [flagged]
        jacquesm 3y ago
        And Hitler was a vegetarian. What Geert Wilders yells to get votes has zero binding on what he is able to accomplish or really intends to do.
        holoduke 3y ago
        You should read the party objectives. State media is often a bit biased and even in the west you can fell victim to propoganda.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        You're hilarious. Geert Wilders is a populist, not a politician. The party objectives are Geert Wilders' dog whistles and promises to the gullible, it isn't a serious political party even though it has attracted the largest voting bloc simply because there is no governance structure in place, the party is Geert Wilders, the rest is just window dressing. The idea that 'even in the west[sic] you can fell[sic] victim to propoganda[sic]' is true but it has nothing to do with my view of Wilders, the PVV or the general Dutch political situation. And as for state media, guess what GW wants to get rid of?
- SEJeff 3y ago
  I mean in France, you've got Marine LePen. In the Netherlands you've got Geert Wilders. Robert Fico wanted to take Slovakia back to a past when oligarchs dominated the state. PiS wanted to turn poland into the arsenal of the EU and got a really good start on it, etc. Nationalism is having a renaissance since Trump won in 2020, but it turns out overall to be a terrible way to run a country.
  - wonderwonder 3y ago
    How are they undermining democracy though? You may not like their politics but what have they done to say they are anti democratic?
    - n4r9 3y ago
      Things like a strong and independent media, legal system, parliament and police force are crucial to democracy. It can be justifiable to argue that someone is anti-democratic if they advocate a narrative that erodes trust in any of these.
      - wonderwonder 3y ago
        That's an interesting idea. Covers both political parties, with the left undermining trust in the police, and Supreme Court. The right in the FBI and journalism.
        n4r9 3y ago
        It's context-dependent, but that's the basic idea. In the UK for example, we currently have quite a right-wing government in power, which is: * Undermining our Supreme Court by trying to force through a migrant deportation scheme which the court has ruled unlawful * Eroding the Police Force's independence by claiming they are biased in their approach to protests * Trying to defund and delegitimise the BBC It might be because I'm fairly left wing myself, but I think you have go pretty far into authoritarian-left territory (think Stalinism) before you start becoming seriously anti-democratic. Before that point most leftists are pretty keen on giving power and choice to ordinary people and communities.

dralley 3y ago

It was not reasonable after 2014. Nordstream 2 was after 2014.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

Fundamentally what actually went the worst was the absolutely awful way that capitalist market systems were, on the whole, rolled out in the eastern bloc in the 90s. Poverty, corruption, and massive wealth disparity were the results. And into the chaos, strongmen came in, and promised and gave some stability.

hkpack 3y ago
Late USSR was not better at all in these countries.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  It depends. Consumption standards weren't higher, but people had stable income, low-ish crime and industrial economy. Of course it was also untenable.

xdennis 3y ago

> It was reasonable not to see Russia as enemy. That's naive. Russia allowed Germany to unify, but not Romania. It was very clear to eastern Europeans that they needed to join NATO before Russia can attack them again. Ever since the 1500s Russia has always sought to expand under the excuse of being encircled. Listen to any Russian propagandist now and they sound no different to ones from hundreds of years ago. They say Russia needs natural bothers. Well, there are no borders until the Carpathian mountains. If they do conquer the Carpathians, they'll just move the goal posts, just like they didn't stop at the Ural mountains. It's naive to not see Russia as the enemy because it has always been so.