Putin & Russia

[monkeybarry]

Who elects it's president and can the people then elect someone else.

The democratically elected parliament.
Yes - at the next cycle, via their representative.

 

[monkeybarry]

Our executive is elected MPs. The EU's is appointed ideologue technocrats

Your point was about whether power brokers are democratically elected.
The Lord's are key power brokers - they have significant influence to change or stop the passing of laws.
The EU's structures are no worse than this, indeed there is at least an element of democracy involved by the electing of the MEP's.

 

[monkeybarry]

Which one? There are about 8. None of whom are elected.

The Commission has the power anyway. Everything else is just for show and to help the dirty lobbying money top up its coffers

The president of which is nominated by the head of state for each member and then voted for by MEPs - sounds pretty damn democratic to me.
The citizens of each member state get to vote for each type of decision maker to represent them.

 

[Lilbaz]

Ok so fifa have said russia can still qualify. But their opponents refuse to play them. So that will mean they forfeit? Russia would qualify.

All international teams need to refuse to play in fifa competitions.

 

[greatwhitenorf]

Looking forward to learning more about EU actions and policies. Especially when, for a chap of my vintage, it includes images of this very presentable lady:

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Looking forward to learning more about EU actions and policies. Especially when, for a chap of my vintage, it includes images of this very presentable lady:

She wants European armies to fight with broomsticks.

Putin will sweep the floor with her.

 

[SteveAWOL]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498027274683174913

 

[braineclipse]

Under what definition is the EU not an empire? It's the most successful imperialism the world has seen since Roosevelt's 'Grand Area' and 'American economic Lebensraum' policy of the 40s.

What? Imperialism? The EU?

That classic imperialist move of allowing countries to have a free election to decide if they want to join. Without any real threat of military force. Allowing members to leave through a democratic process. Again, with no threat of violence or armed conflict.

We're seeing imperialism in action, every day now, from Putin.

The two should not be described with the same words. It's perfectly possible to be rationally critical of the EU, but to choose those words is to me both incorrect and a bit too close to the revisionist history Putin peddles in.

If this was what imperialism was the world would be a very different place.

 

[braineclipse]

I think what would help in your analysis of my comments is to understand the following.

1) My observations are not judging Brexit either way. That is ANOTHER comversation.

2) My observations are very binary. When an onlooker and potential adversary sees two parties mutually weaken, they are more likely to take advantage.

3) Putin has been actively destabilizing the US for years.

Mate. Try to look beyond this as 'another attack on Bulldog Bobby.' It is noting observation of a situation which is undeniable.

Again, the blame game is shared by many.

Putin has worked towards division in and destabilising of Western countries for a very long time. Should be no surprise that this plays into his grander strategical goals. This argument has been made repeatedly for a long time.

That's not to say that Brexit had any direct impact on the invasion in Ukraine. I don't think so. But Putin's overall success in amplifying division surely has some impact on his perception of how freely he can operate in a situation like this. And probably also impacted how coordinated a response from the west can be.

Perfectly possible to agree with a geopolitical enemy on a preferred outcome for specific issues for various reasons. Reasons that may or may not overlap with what Putin wants.

Personally if I find myself wanting the same outcome as Putin (/an autocratic leader) that makes me think twice about both my reasoning and the impact of that outcome.

 

[braineclipse]

She wants European armies to fight with broomsticks.

Putin will sweep the floor with her.

The EU isn't a military organisation.

Last I heard the contribution from individual EU countries hasn't been broomsticks at all. I doubt the Russian soldiers on the ground will experience is as such.

Would the sanctions and overall response have been better, quicker, more effective without the EU and the financial cooperation it brings?

Having the EU is a real benefit right now, as it usually is imo. Not enough of a benefit to stop Putin so far at least, but that's setting a very high bar. One a Europe without EU would also fail to clear.

Talks of accelerating Ukrainian membership into the EU. Good.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Your point was about whether power brokers are democratically elected.
The Lord's are key power brokers - they have significant influence to change or stop the passing of laws.
The EU's structures are no worse than this, indeed there is at least an element of democracy involved by the electing of the MEP's.

Where the power lies is key. Our executive and legislature are elected. The HoL has no power but to delay bill. In EU the unelected executive Commission has all the power, whilst the elected Parliament has none. It's deliberately designed like that to prevent EU critical voices coming to power

 

[Gutter Boy]

What? Imperialism? The EU?

That classic imperialist move of allowing countries to have a free election to decide if they want to join. Without any real threat of military force. Allowing members to leave through a democratic process. Again, with no threat of violence or armed conflict.

We're seeing imperialism in action, every day now, from Putin.

The two should not be described with the same words. It's perfectly possible to be rationally critical of the EU, but to choose those words is to me both incorrect and a bit too close to the revisionist history Putin peddles in.

If this was what imperialism was the world would be a very different place.

Economic imperialism replaced the messy wars and conquering stuff in the 40s. But it achieves the same ends. Look at America for the last 70 years, look at China for the last 25. The EU plays the same game - conquering new territories through economic expansionism

 

[braineclipse]

Who elects it's president and can the people then elect someone else.

It's not a direct election by the population.

That doesn't mean it's not a democratic process. Much like I didn't vote for a prime minister when I voted in our last election here in Norway. It's still a democratic process.

European Parliament elects the Commission President. Members of the European Parliament (MEP) are directly elected.

It's all rather transparent and democratic. Not dissimilar to the democratic system in many countries.

 

[braineclipse]

Economic imperialism replaced the messy wars and conquering stuff in the 40s. But it achieves the same ends. Look at America for the last 70 years, look at China for the last 25. The EU plays the same game - conquering new territories through economic expansionism

Conquering. Empire.

Here, have an election if you want in. Here have an election if you want out. Elect your representatives, have the representatives elect the president. Empire?

The US and China have done a lot more and a lot worse, as I'm sure you're aware of. Some of it more economic imperialist in nature.

Allowing countries to join a democratic primarily economic union is not one such example. I would argue it's a protection against economic imperialism.

 

[scaramanga]

Oooh so the UN are going to conduct "rare emergency session" resulting in another pointless vote which Russia, China and UAE will abstain from, resulting in a whole lot of nothing happening. UN are a waste of time, money and oxygen.

They should have been disbanded when they rewrote their statement on Rwanda to say "genocidal acts" instead of "genocide" so their lawyers could weasel them out of taking action.

 

[Rorschach]

Economic imperialism replaced the messy wars and conquering stuff in the 40s. But it achieves the same ends. Look at America for the last 70 years, look at China for the last 25. The EU plays the same game - conquering new territories through economic expansionism

Europe has been at peace (with a few notable exceptions) because they replaced war with trade. To compare the EU to countries that have actually invaded other countries, some that were actual imperialist expansions, is a nonsense comparison. Applying the language of war to everything to anything related to the EU is a little Daily Mail, do you not think?

 

[braineclipse]

They should have been disbanded when they rewrote their statement on Rwanda to say "genocidal acts" instead of "genocide" so their lawyers could weasel them out of taking action.

To rebuild it from the ground up? Or to do without such an organisation?

The UN is impotent in many ways. I'd much rather have an organisation like that than not. I think the world would be worse off without it.

Getting a functional UN with the power to successfully intervene directly in a situation like this is to me a wish for what cannot be.

Fixing the underlying issues behind what we're currently seeing is one of humanity's greatest challenges. One that will take multiple lifetimes, if it's even at all possible. An organisation like the UN is part of that solution.

We're seeing an almost unified "western" response. Historically speaking unheard of. We're seeing historical long term enemies as rock solid allies. We're seeing coordination and cooperation at a level once only possible through empire. Organisations like the UN and the EU have helped make that possible to the point where it may look inevitable. It never was inevitable.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Maybe not.

This just outlines why Russia won't split up. It does nothing to dispel the notion that it would be better decentralised. If Russia could act as a unifier of distinct localised areas, providing an economic framework for ex-soviet sates and regional Russian states to trade and collaborate, it may have prospered. Initially, I think there was a Commonwealth of Independent States for this, but you need to give these new nations time, and with the West welcoming states into the WTO, NATO etc any organic evolution of such a Russian led collaboration was lost.

 

[braineclipse]

Europe has been at peace (with a few notable exceptions) because they replaced war with trade. To compare the EU to countries that have actually invaded other countries, some that were actual imperialist expansions, is a nonsense comparison. Applying the language of war to everything to anything related to the EU is a little Daily Mail, do you not think?

Using the same words about both sides setting up a false equivalency or at least getting closer to one is part of the narrative Putin wants and spreads.

One should be careful when one's opinions seems to match Putin's narrative, even if it's just in words and not an underlying agreement.

As with most wars it's also an information war, war of public opinion.

Been some back and forth on Brexit and the impact or lack of one on this invasion. I don't think it's a real factor. But people in the west using words like empire and conquering about the EU is to me a direct example of the kind of division Putin wants to amplify.

He benefits from a weakening of the EU. That's a geopolitical goal he has. For reasons that should be obvious. That's not in itself a reason to be pro the EU. But it is a reason to be careful and accurate in one's words and descriptions.

 

[braineclipse]

This just outlines why Russia won't split up. It does nothing to dispel the notion that it would be better decentralised. If Russia could act as a unifier of distinct localised areas, providing an economic framework for ex-soviet sates and regional Russian states to trade and collaborate, it may have prospered. Initially, I think there was a Commonwealth of Independent States for this, but you need to give these new nations time, and with the West welcoming states into the WTO, NATO etc any organic evolution of such a Russian led collaboration was lost.

Alternatively the welcoming of nations into the EU, WTO, NATO is the result of an organic development that Putin is literally waging a war trying to prevent.

Putin is more responsible for preventing such an organic evolution than anyone else.

He's shown his hand if it wasn't already clear to see.

In hindsight joining NATO when Russia was in a weaker position was the only rational decision for many countries.

Time... Over 30 years now. Ukraine not a member of NATO nor the EU. No imminent plans to change that. Putin would rather invade than let further organic change happen.