GER politics thread

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Russian cyber interference in the next german elections?
Just trolling . But act wisely.. Trump wants to destroy the EU because it is the only organisation that has the economical power to compete with the US. And he's of course using the UK 'brexit'.. I do not know whether it is really in Russia's interest to hurt the EU, but if Trump does not want to trade anymore.. there is always Russia.

Yes, both Trump and Putin want to destroy the EU. Divide et impera. Trumps economic America has greater weight if he does individual deals with single nations. Russians has it easier to dominate European poltics and decision making if not dealing with a "united" front", but a fractured group, and can drive a wedge between America and Europe.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yes, both Trump and Putin want to destroy the EU. Divide et impera. Trumps economic America has greater weight if he does individual deals with single nations. Russians has it easier to dominate European poltics and decision making if not dealing with a "united" front", but a fractured group, and can drive a wedge between America and Europe.

Unitied, independent EU would be better for us, as it would be competing with US. The problem with EU that we have is not that it is strong (it is not) but that it is weak and it's external policy is highjacked by third parties.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yes, both Trump and Putin want to destroy the EU. Divide et impera. Trumps economic America has greater weight if he does individual deals with single nations. Russians has it easier to dominate European poltics and decision making if not dealing with a "united" front", but a fractured group, and can drive a wedge between America and Europe.

The EU wants to destroy the EU.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

[...] Russians has it easier to dominate European poltics and decision making if not dealing with a "united" front", but a fractured group, and can drive a wedge between America and Europe.

Only that like the UK, countries like France, Poland and others will probably be the wedge themselves, with their nationalist movements.
Then Romania, Hungary, and Greece.

No one speaks about Austria anymore though, seems their nationalists got direct blow in the face, at least for now

[ikalugin]

Well, are there any interesting developments in Germany? What about the upcomming elections?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The EU wants to destroy the EU.

Not most of the EU countries. At least not until their right wing populists have the majority.

#MakeTheNetherlandsGreatAgain

Problem is that if every country tries to be "great", it usually leads to a neighbour having to be smaller. Unless all would be great on an equal footing.
But then we would have something like the EU, god Trump forbid.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Not most of the EU countries. At least not until their right wing populists have the majority.

#MakeTheNetherlandsGreatAgain

Problem is that if every country tries to be "great", it usually leads to a neighbour having to be smaller. Unless all would be great.

But then we would have something like the EU, god Trump forbid.

You can always join Mother Russia.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

You can always join Mother Russia.

You bet

Though i do not really trust Putin or his forerunners (excluding Gorbatchev and, partially, Yeltsin), i had high hopes at the high time of the "Petersburger Dialog", but the exchange has become considerably colder after the Ukraine and Krim events.
Apart from the US having had a direct interest in Europe and West Germany after the war (for political reasons and marketing), it does not make so much sense for Europe now, in exclusively having trade with a country 4000 km away over the sea, while ignoring a direct neighbour who can be easily reached by terrestrial transports.
But.. sanctions.

Can Russia be a reliable partner now? It would have been possible in the 199ies, before we all screwed that up, but now?

[ikalugin]

I mean the Russian meta narrative was finilised back in 2007, in Putin's speach in Munich. It has been the same for 10 years.

[Skybird]

German defence ministress - lets use a gender-politically correct formulation - von der Leyen indicated that she still underestimates (at least would love to underestimate) the severity of the American demand for more German defence spendings.

At the same time there are real resistences in the defence ministry to reasonably spend more money, the supercomplex internal structure of this nuthouse is against that, it seems, I call it "institutional friction" that bogs down any additonal injction of money into the defence budget. I knew and know some BW boys who leave no good hair on the German defence ministry's competence.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1135192.html

Not in the linked text, but we had it in the media over here, and I saw it on TV one or two days ago:

On the other hand, the SPD's Sigmar Gabriel, now the new foreign clown minister of the German Order of the Holy Mission to Enlighten the World, already said he sees no reason to spend more money, and one should not be so quick with doing that, since a believable defence policy would necessarily vitally base on economic aid to poor countries in the third world to give people there a perspective, and that these sums of money spent by Germany must be counted as part of Germany's defence budegt.

In how far Russia get deterred by German money presents to failed states and corrupted governments in Africa and the Middle East, he did not care to explain to an uncritical audience. And why should he care to exlain it, if nobody of those people asked him for that explanation anyway.

[ValoWay]

I think Trump's US tries to downplay the strategic value and their interest in europe. They imply that they do not really need europe and would fare very well without it what in his mind makes us panic so that we agree to everything he says or wants!

In reality, however, the US benefits a whole lot from the EU's, especially germany's geographically position in a potential conflict with russia. Not to mention their use of europe to store nuclear weapons and as a staging ground for operations in the middle east!

I mean, if nato rules dictate 2% of GDP no matter what it is fair enough to point that out but other countries could also point at america and demand lower co2 emissions or greater participation in the refugee crisis?

Trump is trying to pull businessman tactics on the world by lowballing its importance and making himself more valuable than he actually is.

I'm convinced that the longer his term goes the weaker he will appear in the eyes of the ones who voted him cause actual white house business is something completely different than talking bollocks on twitter..

[Skybird]

But NATO'S always was mainyl anoiut defending Europe - a Sowjet attack on North America was much less feared. The nuclear doctrine came in due to being conventioanlly outnumbered. The nuclera arms race was triggered by the Us, not the USSR (which should not imply that the USSR would not got it started if thy woulkd have been in the nuclear lead in the beginnign years).

If America does not show interest anymore to defend Europe if Europe does too little by itself - why then should the US have an interest to keep Germany as a front state in a defensive war against Russia - to defend Europe that the US it is not interested in defending any longer?

Anyhow, I think Russia is strong enough to destabilise and win some Eastern territories , yes - but it canot overrole all of Western Europe anymore with one big red steam roller like 30, 40 years ago. Its all about Eastenr Eruope,m and the baltic when we tlak about "defending against Russia". That Russia aism ate Germany with its propaganda and destabilzation effort, is due to Germany's economic and political lead role. Divide et impera.

To keep an enemy away, however, always is easier, than to digging him out once he move din and fortified. Thus, defending Eastern Europe and the Baltic must be the top priupority. If Russia would manage to win these territories, I cannot imagine that NATO has the mans to kick them out again. Not materialistically, and not by the psychological attitude of the European people. We do not want to fight any more, and use physicla forc eourselves, and we are a shrinking and aging population, with the loyalties of the masses of foreigners rushing in from the Muslim countries especially being very much in doubt. Its not as if these millions coming in would automatically adapt to us and integrate. Yesterday I read with somne horror that Turkish migrant women in Germany do not have smaller but HIGHER birth rates than Turkish women staying behind in Turkey. That is not in support of this - sinc elong unproven - thesis. Similar trends in France, Sweden, Britain. Already in the early next decade every third person staying in Germany, by then will be of an originally Muslim descent. The native local population in Europe is shrinking everywhere, the foriegn populatiosn, espoecially from muslim coutnies, are in steep raise, not to say: an explosion of birth rates in some instances.

As I also read currently in a comparing book I mentioned in other threads already, (the decline of the Roman republic and the raise of the imperial Roman tyranny), this is one of the many parallels between Rome at the time of Augustus, and the EU today. In Rome it were the falling birth rates due to the good life forming higher appreciation and material freedom for respect of individual freedom and enjoying lkife, which came at the cost of less willingness to take on the burden of foundiogn families, and the the many slaves that got freed at that tiem and that were foreigners, nevertheless gained imemdiate Roman citizenship.

The native historically grown feeling of identity and the values of the native culture were in substantial decline, while forgn views and cultural habits pressed intot the city with almost irrestsitable numerical power. The situaiton became so dire that the Roman legions feared they could not get enough soldiers from native Romans any longer that also were wealthy enough to pay for their equipment. This is the real reason why Sulla reformed the army and turned it into a professional standing army that was paid for and equipped by the state, not privately.

Have I said beforte that I am stunned by that book?! It is brilliant and the quoites, hisotric sources and empoiral evidnece collected by the highly educated author is stunning. If you are interested in Roman history and speak French or German:

David Engels

LINK - Le Déclin : La crise de l'Union européenne et la chute de la république romaine, analogies historiques

LINK -Auf dem Weg ins Imperium: Die Krise der Europäischen Union und der Untergang der Römischen Republik. Historische Parallelen


Funny to read historians and contemporary observers and witnesses from 2000 years ago saying and writing stuff that could have been meant to adress the EU today.

No, wait. Not funny at all. Depressing. It means we have not learnt some important lessons.

[Oberon]

You think Rome might recall its Legions? Not yet, but if the US gets involved in a big war elsewhere...like China for example, then the Legions might have to get recalled.
As for why the US should defend Europe, well it's down to spheres of influence really, isn't it? The EU, like it or not, has always been in the US SOI, there have been some overlapping in Eastern Europe between the EU SOI and Russias SOI and part of that is what caused the Ukrainian war, and may yet start one in Belarus.
If the US unilaterally withdraws from Europe and goes into pre-WWI mode, then there's two options, either the EU gets strong enough to stand on its own two feet, or it falls under Russian SOI...given how things have been going with the rise of the far-right and the resurgence of nationalism in Europe my money would be on the latter, starting with the Eastern European states and slowly extending eastward into Germany. The UK would probably stay under the US SOI because we're Washingtons lapdogs, but Germany eastward would be screwed. France would probably just try to stay neutral and Spain...who knows what Spain would do.
So, that's a lot of economic, military and manpower falling under the Russian SOI, and the US's place in the world becomes a much less secure thing...it goes from being the only superpower to being a regional power, much like China. Without Europe to transition through, it gets harder to reach Middle Eastern fronts, so they get abandoned...Israel goes even further to the right and may go full Samson if the Middle East ever got organised enough to do something about Israel, although chances are the Iran/Saudi war would go nuclear before then, and then it would likely wind up with Israel retaliating on both of them after they send a handful of missiles to Israel which will Iron Dome them. Oil prices go to Mars and Russia becomes incredibly rich, which means it can pimp out its armed forces to Soviet levels, and start exherting political power abroad further than Syria...to Africa and South America perhaps.

Sooner or later, the US is faced with the reality that isolating itself was a stupid maneuver, and now the rest of the world is re-arranging itself into a post-American power bloc structure, and the rest of the world together is a lot stronger than America on its lonesome. At around this point things then go down the toilet 1941 style.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Oberon

[...] If the US unilaterally withdraws from Europe and goes into pre-WWI mode, then there's two options, either the EU gets strong enough to stand on its own two feet, or it falls under Russian SOI..

Which is amongst other things like science and ERASMUS, why we thank England so much for the 'brexit'. The EU was about to create a combined military force, when suddenly national movements decided they were stronger alone.
The EU may be corrupt and incapable in some aspects (something that of course never happens within national governments lmao), but don't get me started what it would be like with isolated nationalistic states again.

England has alway had some interest on the continent, and if it was only to try to prevent a union or continental states working together. "Divide et impera". But now England would not profit from it, regardless what types like Farage and his ilk purport.

There is international trade and globalisation, stock exchange and money-lending taking place across the world in seconds, and the financial center is in London, with Frankfurt at the second position. There is of course also a lot of illegal money, but the main thing is that London profits from the European federal bank EZB to pump money into the market. As soon as this stops, the whole financial bubble will burst.
Which is maybe not even a bad thing, but England will anything but profit from that scenario.

[Skybird]

If money is already not paid for the established military defence network - NATO - then why would I assume that the unneeded erection and maintaining of a military parallel structure that more or less, estimated by handsight , doubles the total costs, would be paid for. Europe needs to strengthen its stand inside NATO instead. And by that, ti would also win a bigger say in NATO. Ideally, i think Europeans should shoulder 55-60% of the defence costs of NATO, since it is mainly European interests NATO is defending, European soil, European freedom. A Russian invasion into North America probably nobody has ever seriously considered.

As of the EU, the EU of the kind it is now must go. This doe snot mean to fall back into poure nationalism or national state thinking, but the EU as it is now is driven by narcissistic ######## who cannot stand to be reduced in meaning, glory and power, and the material interests iof these honourable and super competent gentlemen and that of the many bureaucrats in the massive bureaucratric apparatus are at stake as well. The EU I consider to be non-reformable. And we can nicels see it in the debt crisis and the Euro crisis and the current ritual - not more it is - abot Greece's needed money support (what a BG SUPRISE that they again need oney, how should one have forseen that years ago after the first rescues?) One just moves on as always, does the same fake shows and stage dramas, and nothign chnages, and so deeper and deeper into the mess it all slides.

The EU must go, but it will not go voluntarily, if however it would be gone, it should be replaced with a new economic cooperation union of much smaller size, with members fitting better and that are more comparable. Many links in the chain do not stengthen a chain if these links are weak. Any chain only is as strong as its weakest link. Total number of member states is relatively unimportant.

It also cannot be any longer that the fincially net receivers and the weakest economic players have athe same saying and the same voting power like those paying in multiple times as much. In the ECB currently the net receivers have a voting majoirty over those nations who are net payers. With the forseeable result. Draghi's plundering policy and illegal state financing doctrine, hidden behing many twisted words, are the result of that.

I insist on it: Europe and the EU, are two very different things. What counts, should be Europe, not the EU. However, for cultural, historical and demographical reasons things do not look shiny for Europe anyway. One cannot help it, this is a cultural sphere that is in fall. It will lead either to a hige dictatorship, or plenty of chaos and the corpus shreddered by others, mainly Islam. Could also be that the foreign relgion that we now breed inside our home will be declared state relgion by a possible European dictatorship, to enforce compliance and thus stability like it was done with Chriostoan religion in Rome, when it was declared the Roman state religion.

You gotta love these outlooks.

That we allow the EU and the progressive thinkers to intentionally destroy the most fundamental identity-building social-cultural core cell - the family, which stands at the very beginning of the progressive line core family-bigger family-tribe-people-nation-culture - just to destroy right these later terms and replace such identiy feelings in people with artificial, lifeless, universalistic, non-indiviual EU-nomatized "values", also does not help, of course. Plus it does its share to reducing birth rates, due to the individual freedoms being put above communal interests. Lets face it, individual interests and communal interests, for exmaple freely living your secuality without needing to fear the biological (and biologically wnated) consequences, and society's vital survival interests, are mutually exclszuive. The more of the one, the less of the other you have. The massive individual rights agreed on in today'S West go at the huge cost of keepign the institution of the family strong. No wonder then that people are being raised wiothout identity and orientation and just can be led around by their nose like cattle and believe just any other cultural set of values, no matter how set-back it may be, is as good as their own -s ince they have no feeling and no understanding of "own" lived identity, since they have no living own identity - jus this aticial lifeless universalistic, generlaised bureaucratic constructions from the EU's engineer labs.

Many people, more an dmore people, feel increasingly uncomfortable about this cultural rape by the EU, since forming group identity is inbuild into us due to it it now being evolutionary encoded in our genes. We do want to be part not of some infinte, vague mass of somethingl but a peer group, a social and cultural framework that defeines what and who we are, and what and who we are not. Its very profound, very basic, its in our psychological and even cognitive! fundament. And that is why the native population in Europe will more and more become aggressive, towards the EU, towards enforced imigration, towards the foreign itself that gets imported and enforced by clueless polticians in far too high numbers. The demonised "populists" are just the beginning, and they are here to stay, and to grow. They are a natural reaction to the abuses the intellectual "elite" is punishing Europe with. Helping this all probably will not. Europe is already lost for the native Eurppeans. The onyl question is if in the new European cultural regime somethign of the old value system of the Christian-Judaic and Greek-Roman origin will survive, or if it will all be totally subjugated and wiped out by foreign powers that are far less tolerant and "mutli-cultural" than naive Europeans today are.