Comments by "andy99ish" (@andy99ish) on "EU Debates | eudebates.tv" channel.

@Lasse65 There is no such thing as the n-th strongest overall military power. Russia in terms of strategic and tactical nuclear capabilities is at the top. Conventionally it was generally overestimated. Yet as so often in its history Russia learns from mistakes and is getting better. It has already directly and indirectly destroyed the Ukraine to a large part and indirectly damaged the West via inflation, which i.a. brought Trump to power. Only a fool would not respect their military power. When it comes to attacking other countries Russia is less active than the USA. Yet only a foolish neighbor would provoke them.
1
France will not submit the control of its nuclear arms to anyone. That is a no go. And then you have to find people willing to fight. Both the US and Russia have very large professional armies. No EU country has something like this.
1
Eurocrats are quiet knowledgeable. Yet they are disconnected with reality and with the people.
1
@gerogeholmer: I am vaccinated, as that was my individual decision. Yet to force people to take part in a medical experiment as defined by the WHO is totally at odds with classic European standards. However you have the mentality of an eager serf. And by this you prove Vance's point: The biggest threat to Europe is European illiberalism.
1
LOL So you, an American, tell us Europeans not to listen to Americans ? According to your advice, we should not listen to you either ! Signed, a European.
1
@scottweir6799 Falklands: US logistic support was crucial for the British success. And the US provided that despite the fact that they supported the Argentinian Junta. Read eg. "One Hundred Days" by Admiral Woodward. Or Lady Thatcher's memoirs. And please do not use derogatory terms for other countries. That makes you look rather uncivilized.
1
@briankgruber Oligarchy is natural for Russian countries in a large sense (Russia proper, White Russia = Belarus, Ukraine). Zelensky turned into an oligarch too. In the next few month US and European politicians will have the task to explain to their naive public, that Putin is not the devil incarnate, nor is Zelensky the defender of democracy. Once that is achieved a more even headed approach will prevail. Trump's main problem is that he is ahead of the public opinion, which was manipulated by his predecessor into manichean schemes.
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
@andersmalmgren6528 As a historian I know that Munich 1938 was a rather rare instance of underestimating a major power. More often wars came from the opposite, i.e. exaggerated fears. Trump is doing the unavoidable, in a businesslike style, which offends many. But let's not forget that Macron and Scholz have failed before. Now Ukrainian territory loss and no NATO are possibly unavoidable. The issue of reparations is open. The most important thing however is the post-war order. And Putin did not win overall. NATO came even closer via Scandinavia, Europe turned anti-Russian. The Ukraine is therefore a draw.
1
@briankgruber Ukrainians do not laugh about the fact, that Z who promised to cleanse politics, enriched himself to the level of oligarch. That why he is quite unpopular and that is why he now stripped his rival Poroshenko of his political rights. Instead of laughing you should be grateful that you get information not served by mainstream media.
1
@ The existence of Russia -and, what follows and is the really important part, namely the acknowledgement that Russia can have legitimate interests too, was denied since the mid 1990s. Long before any Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
1
@r.i.peperoniiiiroh9625 For your information my grandfather as a Polish soldier fought for Petlura in 1920. He and others witnessed the extreme political chaos on Ukrainian soil. There was no state to speak off. And later, in 1943 he witnessed the Volhyina genocide, perpetuated by the UPA. An organization officially cherished by modern Ukraine. Shameful. Stalin the Georgian let the Ukrainian "kulaks' die of famine. That action was not anti-Ukrainian. Neither was is Russian. It was anti-human as most of Stalin's actions. Of course Ukrainian nationalist take each and every tragedy as proof that they were targeted as Ukrainians. Actually one of the few good things about the Soviet Union was that it treated its nationalities equally. In bad but also in good. Re Russian interests I lucidly encounter a widespread attitude that any of them are illegitimate by definition. As long as that such hateful thinking will prevail there will be no peace.
1
@brendacarmichael3180 Problem is that her speech ignores differences. Actually the problem starts with using the geographical term "Europe" to suggest that there is already enough cultural common ground for a political union. In reality the attempt in Lisbon to define what that common European ground is, failed.
1
@KazimierzSurma You must be one of those realistic Poles, correct ? :)
1
@KazimierzSurma So, in the spirit of realism, here is what I think: Both the EU and the Ukraine now gets a lesson in US Realpolitik. It is astonishing for me, as a European, that European political elites, boasting with their historical experience, are astonished about that. The USA in each and every conflict of the last 80 years reached a point, when they no longer wanted to finance an unwinnable war. And before that President Roosevelt traded 1/3 of Europe to "Uncle Joe" Stalin, overriding Churchill. The US never much cared about the side they previously have supported. There is nothing specifically Trumpish about that. Now I do not blame the US for pursuing its goals. However I do blame European politicians for taking flowery, idealistic rhetoric for reality.
1
@ Maybe you do not know, but in Europe the military is under civil control.
1
@lucaluca799 Mots Europeans do not believe that EU propaganda. Actually the EU is a parking lot for less talented and less trusted politicians, who do not make it on national stage.
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
@boozolini4465 Your world is not free speech then. As free speech includes debating which of Russia's interests are legitimate / acceptable to us, and which are not.
1
@boozolini4465 The red line for me is wishing away reality. Russia is there and is too powerful to ignore. That is neither fascism nor communism, but realism. Given that we shall debate what we can accept and what we cannot when dealing with Russia. And we can also debate what we like and what we dislike about the Ukraine. That is what free speech is about. Actually as an Italian you should know that free speech was a major element of Italian city republics. Which were an important pan-European inspiration for republicanism, closer relative to democracy.
1
@boozolini4465 Sure, sure. Now take your sedatives.
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
The US has a rich history of overpromising. Just ask the Kurds. Too bad now the EU wants to copy the US in this respect.
1
@mbd6054 I am West European. And I know our history and present decadence very well. I also know that EU countries, let alone European ones do not sit in one boat regarding Russia. And I also know the Slavic mentality quite well. Let me enlighten you: The critical factor when it comes to war is the readiness to die in combat. Both Russians and Ukrainians have it. West Europe does not. And unlike the USA West Europe does not have a vast underclass to recruit combatants from. Actually its mostly Muslim lower class will not participate in infidels' wars. See, echoing eurocratic platitudes will not help you to progress on your learning curve.
1
@ The Dutch were an early colonial power. And no, they did not "create America". Whatever you mean by America.
1
Given Georgia's geographical location and historical ties it cannot pursue an anti-Russian course. To call on Georgia to do so is a call for disaster. That NATO Secretary General should remember that NATO is supposed to be a DEFENSIVE alliance. And not an alliance to push forward Western ideas and interests.
1
@ If anything it is purchasing power indices which shall be accounted for. Not exchange rates.
1
@adwest68 How is Rutte ?
1
@alicjamadzia9744 Dziękuję Alicjo Madziu :)
1
Europe ? There is no such political entity. Some European countries, like Hungary and Poland, have pursued a strict immigration policy since years. They were decried as being hard right or even fas cists.
1
We need to leave that tunnel vision, according to which Russia by definition cannot have legitimate interests.
1
@ Why not? That is what NATO countries also do. Or did you forget Iraq 2003 ?
1
@svennielsen633 You remember wrongly. What you describe was 1991. 2003 was an unprovoked invasion into the Iraq by the USA and a couple of other NATO countries. Iraqui dead 150.00-600.000, depending on source and in how far war consequences are taken into account. See, that is the problem with the West: Many Westerners argue from a position of moral superiority. Yet are not aware that the West has lost it. As can be seen, many do not even know what has happened 24 years ago.
1