“You disagree with my point of view, so I’m not gonna respond to any of your arguments because my state propaganda told me your point of view is forbidden and ontologically evil and I can automatically discard any discussion about it. Yes, I’m the one whose opinion is founded on logic”
Please explain me how my concerns about the far right rising (arguably pro-russian) and the worries about the welfare state in Europe and my support for a EU-wide military alliance are Russian talking points.
The antagonism between Ukrainians and Russians is a project the west has been pushing for a century. First it was Nazi Germany weaponizing a hunger episode that hurt Ukraine disproportionately more in order to create anti-russian sentiment (see Stepan Bandera), then it was Europe+US talking of Ukraine as a Russian colony during Soviet times.
In the 1991 referendum, Ukraine voted to remain part of the Soviet Union which was illegally dismantled against the democratic will of the majority of the Soviet population. Despite this, the country was dissolved, the economy was auctioned to the most corrupt bidder, the industry was dismantled, and by 2022 Ukraine still hadn’t recovered the economic level it had before 1991. The dissolution of the Soviet Union literally caused a demographic crisis in Ukraine comparable to the ongoing war.
Until 1991, the tensions between Ukraine and Russia were minor and the countries had a benign, sisterly relationship. It is the breaking of the eastern block that primarily triggers anti-russian nationalism in Ukraine and vice versa in Russia. It’s the broken promise of the west not to push NATO eastward that puts Russia on its toes, and it’s western-backed colour revolutions like the Euromaidan that proved Russia that Europe would always position itself against Russia, and not establishing friendly economic and diplomatic ties.
There’s no requirement for spending as a part of NATO.
Not a strict requirement, but pressure to do so. Whose idea was it to raise to 5% again? The only president who rejected the idea, Pedro Sanchez from Spain, got threatened with tariffs if Spain doesn’t conform.
They have reasons. Some EU nations are former Soviet states. Just the “restore the former borders of the Soviet union” reason is reason enough
Russia has been pushing for closer political and economic ties with Europe for the past 30 years. Russia was promised that if they dismantled the communist project NATO would cease to expand eastward, and NATO kept expanding eastward regardless. Turns out NATO was never about defending Europe (because it never has), it was always about creating tensions between Russia and Europe because a continuous political alliance of industrialized nations that spans from Gibraltar to Bering would be too powerful for the US to control.
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is almost certainly the reason your country, whichever it is, is increasing military spending.
The justification is the invasion of Ukraine. But as a European, the number of times our military has been used to defend Europe has been 0 since WW2, it’s only ever used to support US imperial ambitions, to bomb brown children, or to keep control over colonies in Africa. Europe deals so much fucking damage with its imperialism, that’s one of the biggest reasons I don’t want military expenditure. They tell us it’s to defend from “le evil Ruzzians” but 5 years later Europe will be bombing brown children with that money, mark my words. For fuck’s sake Europe can’t even stop supporting the genocide of Palestinians. How can you want Europe to spend more money in military instead of engaging in diplomacy and not antagonising Russia?
Do they have the strength? Why is that included here. Does it matter?
It does matter. If Europe already has the military strength to repel Russia, why do you want the extra expenditure in weapons?
They are only useful to deter other nuclear strikes,
Why wasn’t the Soviet Union or any of its satellite states invaded by the west since they got the nukes, then? The cold war was raging, and yet there was no incident of overt military conflict between eastern and western block. How so?
I’d love to see the EU with its own defensive force
If love to see the EU pushing for diplomacy and not antagonising the largest country in the world which happens to be right beyond its borders. I would line to see a European military alliance independent from the US but I wouldn’t like it spending 5% of the yearly budget at the cost of already starving healthcare, education and pensions. Denmark already approved to raise retirement to 70 fucking years old in order to pay for this, Finland is pushing to remove holidays from the calendar, and England already said that raising this budget will have effects on expenditure in social services. This is absolute bullshit.
We have the far right getting stronger and stronger due to the worsening living conditions of Europeans because of austerity policy and lack of intervention of things like salaries or rent prices. Cool, let’s increase military expenditure to 5% right before fucking LePen, AfD, Vox and their equivalents get to the governments, what could possibly go wrong? Remember my words: in 5 years time, the European money will be spent not in conflict against Russia, but in middle east / Africa. Supporting military expenditure of the west is absolutely crazy.
You want magic, not reality. You want all the benefits of military power without any of the costs
No, I dont want the benefits of military power because I’m not a warmongering European chauvinist like you, I want the benefits of diplomacy, of social spending, and of good relations with neighbouring counteies. I don’t want my fucking healthcare money to end up in the pockets of Rheinmetall in order to lobby my politicians to go to war. I’m an able-bodied male and I don’t want my country to send me to be cannon fodder in the name of European imperialism.
First of all, the country currently forcing my country to cut expenditure in healthcare and to put it into military is the US, not Russia. And the country funding and arming the most flagrant example of genocide in the 21st century is the US.
Second of all, Russia doesn’t have geopolitical reasons, nor the military/economic strength, to invade EU countries. And even if it did, the EU has nukes so you don’t need further military expenditure as deterrent.
Third, even if you forget all I’ve said above, the EU can still have a military alliance without the US, and it would be a much better thing.
Putin is famously the president of the Russian Republic, very different from the Soviet Union. I don’t know why you thinking me criticising what Russia has become somehow makes me Russian?
The death of NATO is a good fucking thing. No more US military bases in the EU, no more forced expenditure of civil budget in weapons causing austerity, no more bombing of Libya and Yugoslavia, no more US influence in European politics. If you’re European you should salivate at the thought of NATO ending.
Wait, “attack of evil”? The US is literally funding and arming the genocide in Gaza, the US IS the greatest evil. You may argue for Russia being a close second (discounting Israel), but how is the US not absolutely the worst by any metric? How many millions did it murder in Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, and how many millions more were murdered under its approval in Southeast Asia(Suharto) or Latin America (Pinochet)?
If democracy patently doesn’t work under the separation of powers, what compells you to believe it’s an essential principle to maintain democratic institutions?
You’re right, it’s so well-implemented in the rest of the world, such as in my home country of Spain where the supreme court is trying to enjail Catalonian politicians against international law. Surely the idea that law should be ultimately judged by a group of old people who select each other is the best way possible for law to work!
Huh, who would’a thunk that “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” were just tools to simultaneously prevent progressive policy from being passed, and to give a semblance of democracy from a capitalist empire
So you just ignore my entire comment and try to find other “Soviet history compilation: best gotcha moments”? Answer to my previous comment in good faith and I’ll answer to you in the same way
In 1918 Poland decided to unilaterally invade modern Ukraine and Belarus because of nationalist expansionist beliefs, you can read about it on the wikipedia article or the Polish-Ukrainian war.
In 1939 the Soviet Union recovered those territories and gave them back to the Belarusian and Ukrainian SSRs, which Poles are still crying about. If you care about seeing maps representing this I can give you sources no problem since I’m arguing from good faith.
After 1945, Poland was forced by the USSR to give reparations in order to compensate for the lack of mutual defense agreement against Nazis before 1939, which was a mistaken policy that led to a lot of insatisfaction in Poland. After the mid-1950s, the Soviet Union removed these reparations and instead started subsidising the Polish socialist nation with cheap resources and industrialising it.
Again: what part of my second paragraph of the previous comment is a Russian talking point. If it’s so obvious you can definitely explain?