Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Russia and the Far-Right in Europe

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 7:04:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
In Europe, the right wing is most associated with two things:
1. Euroscepticism (a wish that one's own country either would not be part of the European Union or would have a greater deal of autonomy within the union)
2. Anti-immigration sentiment (fear that immigrants, especially those from the Middle East, will usurp the natives of Europe and/or will replace the native culture with that of Sharia Law, and/or that the immigrants are bringing rampant crime and terrorism into Europe)

In 1993 that organisation which we call the European Union formally came into existence. It was founded upon the principles of liberal democracy, and could perhaps be seen as an offshoot of NATO. Two of the most notable achievements of the EU were the Euro, which was designed to be a single currency for the continent, and the Schengen Area, a free movement zone (that is, a French person can pass into Spain without a visa or without having to go through border control, and vise-versa). The Schengen Area stretches from Portugal to Finland.

The European Union drafts legislation for all of its member states. Those who don't wish to adopt said legislation must negotiate an opt-out.
Many people resent the idea of some people in Brussels (the de facto capital of the EU) deciding what they can and can't do. They feel that their own countries are losing their sovereignty to this continental organisation, and they don't like that one bit.
Furthermore, sometimes the EU's decisions are unpopular in their own right. Many people resented the bailout of Greece, and many people (especially those in the bigger, richer countries of Europe) fear that the EU will ultimately serve to redistribute wealth from them to those member states which had irresponsible fiscal policies for years on end. Many also see the bailouts (and the debt crises behind them) as evidence that one currency for many countries with different economic realities and policies is a horrible idea.

Then there's immigrants. In 2010 6% of the population of Europe was Muslim (compared with 0.9% in the USA); by 2030 this number is expected to rise to 8%. Many people have unrealistically high estimates of what the Muslim population in Europe will be by then. In any case, if current trends continue indefinitely we will eventually see a Muslim Europe. The recent migrant crisis has only served as a catalyst to this demographic change, with 1 million Muslim refugees entering Germany alone since 2015.
Beyond this, 2001 saw terrorism become the biggest perceived threat to societies around the world; Europe is no exception to this. These fears were revived after the recent wave of devastating ISIL terror attacks across the European continent.
Islamic immigration to Europe has also sparked fears of young Muslim men committing acts of sexual violence against European women. From 1997 to 2013 an estimated 1,400 children in the town of Rotherham were sexually abused by gang members of Pakistani descent. On the 2016 New Year's Eve, in Germany alone hundreds of cases of sexual assaults were reported, most of them committed against European women by Muslim men. Some have gone so far as to claim that in certain big cities of Europe, women no longer feel safe walking alone at night whereas they did feel relatively safe doing this only a few years ago; many feel that young Arab men come from cultures where misogyny and sexual violence against women is commonplace and that they're simply exporting these twisted values to their new homelands.
In light of the migrant crisis the EU has attempted to prevent member states from sealing their borders to these migrants, which in turn has made the EU less popular. Angel Merkel, one of the most refugee-friendly politicians on the continent, has been demonised by the general public.

Finally, on June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom voted in a popular referendum to leave the European Union. This will likely have a domino effect and end with other EU member states choosing to leave.
But where will they go? Will they simply stand alone against the EU and the immigrants?
Well, actually, there is an alternative to the EU and the US-led order in Europe.
That alternative is Russia, a great power country which is vehemently opposed to both the EU and Islamic immigration to Europe.
Furthermore, many of the countries which are most opposed to the EU and the Muslim immigrants are also the most conservative and religious countries in Europe. In Poland, for example, abortion is not readily available to any pregnant woman and instead is only allowed in specific circumstances. 87.5% of Poles are Catholic, and 65% of Catholic Poles attend church services on a regular basis. Same-sex marriage is not allowed in Poland, and same-sex couples are banned from adopting. In 2013 68% of Poles were opposed to same-sex marriage. Russia is also quite conservative, and in recent years the country has imposed increased restrictions on the homosexual lifestyle.
In short, Russia will likely serve as an alternative to those European countries which are unsatisfied with the prevailing liberal order promoted by the U.S. and the EU.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 7:28:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 7:04:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In Europe, the right wing is most associated with two things:
1. Euroscepticism (a wish that one's own country either would not be part of the European Union or would have a greater deal of autonomy within the union)
2. Anti-immigration sentiment (fear that immigrants, especially those from the Middle East, will usurp the natives of Europe and/or will replace the native culture with that of Sharia Law, and/or that the immigrants are bringing rampant crime and terrorism into Europe)

In 1993 that organisation which we call the European Union formally came into existence. It was founded upon the principles of liberal democracy, and could perhaps be seen as an offshoot of NATO. Two of the most notable achievements of the EU were the Euro, which was designed to be a single currency for the continent, and the Schengen Area, a free movement zone (that is, a French person can pass into Spain without a visa or without having to go through border control, and vise-versa). The Schengen Area stretches from Portugal to Finland.

The European Union drafts legislation for all of its member states. Those who don't wish to adopt said legislation must negotiate an opt-out.
Many people resent the idea of some people in Brussels (the de facto capital of the EU) deciding what they can and can't do. They feel that their own countries are losing their sovereignty to this continental organisation, and they don't like that one bit.
Furthermore, sometimes the EU's decisions are unpopular in their own right. Many people resented the bailout of Greece, and many people (especially those in the bigger, richer countries of Europe) fear that the EU will ultimately serve to redistribute wealth from them to those member states which had irresponsible fiscal policies for years on end. Many also see the bailouts (and the debt crises behind them) as evidence that one currency for many countries with different economic realities and policies is a horrible idea.

Then there's immigrants. In 2010 6% of the population of Europe was Muslim (compared with 0.9% in the USA); by 2030 this number is expected to rise to 8%. Many people have unrealistically high estimates of what the Muslim population in Europe will be by then. In any case, if current trends continue indefinitely we will eventually see a Muslim Europe. The recent migrant crisis has only served as a catalyst to this demographic change, with 1 million Muslim refugees entering Germany alone since 2015.
Beyond this, 2001 saw terrorism become the biggest perceived threat to societies around the world; Europe is no exception to this. These fears were revived after the recent wave of devastating ISIL terror attacks across the European continent.
Islamic immigration to Europe has also sparked fears of young Muslim men committing acts of sexual violence against European women. From 1997 to 2013 an estimated 1,400 children in the town of Rotherham were sexually abused by gang members of Pakistani descent. On the 2016 New Year's Eve, in Germany alone hundreds of cases of sexual assaults were reported, most of them committed against European women by Muslim men. Some have gone so far as to claim that in certain big cities of Europe, women no longer feel safe walking alone at night whereas they did feel relatively safe doing this only a few years ago; many feel that young Arab men come from cultures where misogyny and sexual violence against women is commonplace and that they're simply exporting these twisted values to their new homelands.
In light of the migrant crisis the EU has attempted to prevent member states from sealing their borders to these migrants, which in turn has made the EU less popular. Angel Merkel, one of the most refugee-friendly politicians on the continent, has been demonised by the general public.

Finally, on June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom voted in a popular referendum to leave the European Union. This will likely have a domino effect and end with other EU member states choosing to leave.
But where will they go? Will they simply stand alone against the EU and the immigrants?
Well, actually, there is an alternative to the EU and the US-led order in Europe.
That alternative is Russia, a great power country which is vehemently opposed to both the EU and Islamic immigration to Europe.
Furthermore, many of the countries which are most opposed to the EU and the Muslim immigrants are also the most conservative and religious countries in Europe. In Poland, for example, abortion is not readily available to any pregnant woman and instead is only allowed in specific circumstances. 87.5% of Poles are Catholic, and 65% of Catholic Poles attend church services on a regular basis. Same-sex marriage is not allowed in Poland, and same-sex couples are banned from adopting. In 2013 68% of Poles were opposed to same-sex marriage. Russia is also quite conservative, and in recent years the country has imposed increased restrictions on the homosexual lifestyle.
In short, Russia will likely serve as an alternative to those European countries which are unsatisfied with the prevailing liberal order promoted by the U.S. and the EU.

Yeah, this is why the support of mass migration is utterly moronic from a geopolitical standpoint. Europe's political power comes from their unity, and attempts to centralize while flooding countries with refuges which they don't want is compromising that unity. They are essentially setting the stage for Europe being devoured, on a geopolitical basis, piecemeal between the different great world powers because of mind-numbingly stupid, naive political philosophy. Merkel will be remembered in infamy if this continues, as the politician who sacrificed European unity and peace and opened the country up to complete dominance by other foreign policies. It's going to become a battleground again, as the Middle East is now, where no nation has the ability to project enough power to expel those players who see them as a means to an end.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 7:39:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Now, it's pretty common knowledge that Russia would like to annex Ukraine and Belarus (and perhaps the Baltics, if they can get away with it). But Russia would also like some satellite states. This time around, however, they have an opportunity to create an entirely voluntary array of Russia-aligned states in Eastern Europe, where religious conservatism is strongest. The refugee crisis and the Brexit were the two greatest catalysts to this.
On the bright side, if Russia builds "Greater Russia" and gains its very own Bloc in Europe, it may be satisfied with that and transition to a more insular policy.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 11:26:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 7:04:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
But where will they go? Will they simply stand alone against the EU and the immigrants?
Well, actually, there is an alternative to the EU and the US-led order in Europe.
That alternative is Russia, a great power country which is vehemently opposed to both the EU and Islamic immigration to Europe.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Kremlin is doing what it can to finance neo-Nazis and fascists in Europe -- not the anti-immigrant nativists -- but it's not as if either of these parties rely on Putin for their survival. He has simply found a treasonous nihilists who are ready to undermine their own nations' national security.

The goal, moreover, is not for anyone -- not even Putin -- to have these nations look to Russia as a prime example of civilization. Such a position is laughable by all measures.

And as a result of Russia's invasive activity, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia are boosting defenses and simultaneously looking to further militarize the EU. Obama simultaneously increased troop levels in July (https://www.whitehouse.gov...).

In short, Russia will likely serve as an alternative to those European countries which are unsatisfied with the prevailing liberal order promoted by the U.S. and the EU.
All Russia can hope for is to act in Europe as Iran in the Arabian Peninsula, that is, to exert negative control -- spread insurrections -- to destabilize its neighbors.

Keep in mind that the EU is the Marshall Plan in its latest version. And both the EU and NATO were created to sustain a league of democracies in a world of expansionist tyranny, which is now what best defines Russia (however weak).

Moreover, Russia is culturally distinguished by the Russian Orthodox Church which is rejected across the Catholic intermarium and viewed with caution in Greece and Bulgaria. But even those two Orthodox basket cases would avoid becoming a part of the Russian sphere of interest or tie their economies to Russia's decrepit kleptocracy.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 1:26:28 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
The us is naive if it believes we have influence in Europe still beyond giveaways, specifically on military hardware.

Brexit gives us the perfect opportunity to heed George washington's warning: avoid European entanglements.

The perfect opportunity to close our bases, withdraw from nato, and focus solely on economic endeavors, leaving European politics for the Europeans. We have done more than our fair share. That is neither xenophobia nor isolationism. It is common sense.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 11:47:23 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/5/2016 1:26:28 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
The us is naive if it believes we have influence in Europe still beyond giveaways, specifically on military hardware.
You are naive if you believe isolation is even an option. The U.S. created the EU, which is the Marshall Plan 3.0. It is in our interest that it functions.

Brexit gives us the perfect opportunity to heed George washington's warning: avoid European entanglements.
Brexit only ruins the opportunity for the U.S. and U.K. to enter into a free trade agreement involving the European Union. But it doesn't change the security architecture put in place since 1945.

The perfect opportunity to close our bases, withdraw from nato, and focus solely on economic endeavors, leaving European politics for the Europeans.
That's not an option. To establish an equilibrium in the current balance of power in Eastern Europe, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, and Romania need to boost their defenses -- and that is what Obama has undertaken by sending 4,000 extra troops in July.

You're forgetting the most important aspect in politics: the national interest always trumps economic gain.

We have done more than our fair share. That is neither xenophobia nor isolationism. It is common sense.
It's Calvin Coolidge-styled isolationism: "The business of America is business."
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2016 11:57:14 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
You are naive if you believe it is in our national interest to remain embroiled in European politics and to bolster our military forces there.

But I've seen some of your other posts and can tell you still have faith in things like the UN, NATO and still see there relevance although the world has vastly changed... With those antiquities being a bygone day.

None of what I said is isolationism, but that's how relics read anything that counters there 1970s school of thought.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 2:57:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/5/2016 11:57:14 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
You are naive if you believe it is in our national interest to remain embroiled in European politics and to bolster our military forces there.
It is in our national interest to maintain an equilibrium of the balance of power in Europe. Preferably, Europe takes care of these troop deployments, but the 4,000 placed in Romania in July are a reminder of America's stake. Moreover, a functioning Europe needs a prosperous economic system and capable military institutions. If we can achieve these through the EU (Marshall Plan 3.0) and NATO respectively, then we are promoting our interests at a reduced cost.

As a superpower, following Mackinder's geopolitics, everything that occurs between the Gulf of Aden (20th parallel north latitude) and St. Petersburg (60th parallel north latitude) is within our immediate interest.

But I've seen some of your other posts and can tell you still have faith in things like the UN, NATO and still see there relevance although the world has vastly changed... With those antiquities being a bygone day.
You won't find a single post where I have supported the United Nations. I find the Security Council an outmoded institution which spreads disorder rather than order by having every minor decision pass through a veto quintet. Whereas France and the U.K. have skydived into irrelevance, Russia and China should not be handed the kind of influence they are currently exacting through this mechanism. I would very much like to see the Security Council dissolved and the United Nations downscaled to a biannual forum in Geneva.

As far as NATO is concerned, I support it as an institution to maintain defense infrastructure in Europe and elsewhere.

None of what I said is isolationism, but that's how relics read anything that counters there 1970s school of thought.
I'm far more primordial. Try Thucydides and Hamilton.

Where I identified your isolationism was in the Coolidge delusion that there is such a thing as a pure business relationship between nation-states. There isn't. The national interest takes a front seat, pushing the business people aside and pulling the diplomatic circles along with it.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 6:37:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Maintaining forces and bases, on our dime, is not only a waste, it is irresponsible. NATO achieved its goal with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. It is outdated and modeled on a bygone era. There is absolutely no reason to maintain air or ground forces in Europe. We have a navy for force protection with 12 carrier battle groups. 6 being enough for projection in the Baltic, Mediterranean, and red-Arabian seas.

Here many sit bitching about military expenditures (maybe you, maybe not), yet when opportunity allows for course correction, we keep doing what we've done since 1945. I served over there and while that doesn't give me special credibility, it did open my eyes a little wider in what our mission is.

The Europeans combined military is strong enough to take care of themselves. They don't need us: they use us. And our stupid gullible asses oomp-a-loomp right along.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 7:38:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 6:37:30 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Maintaining forces and bases, on our dime, is not only a waste, it is irresponsible.
Each nation contributes by defending their own territory. Through the NATO defense infrastructure, we have in place a kind of lend-lease arrangement which makes it possible to deploy troops. The 2% funding issue, which is systematically eschewed, primarily regards the ability for member states to sustain a balance of power against a revanchist Russia.

NATO achieved its goal with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. It is outdated and modeled on a bygone era.
This is a common misconception based on the poorly informed Bill Clinton's comments. NATO was created in 1949 for the sake of establishing collective security for a coalition of democracies. The Warsaw Pact, on the other hand, was formed in 1955 as a countermeasure.

There is absolutely no reason to maintain air or ground forces in Europe. We have a navy for force protection with 12 carrier battle groups. 6 being enough for projection in the Baltic, Mediterranean, and red-Arabian seas.
I'll sum up our goals:
1. ground forces in Europe to sustain the balance of power vis-a-vis Russia;
2. air and naval forces to maintain our command over the high seas, to sustain the global flow of commerce.

By the way, you didn't mention Japan and Korea, so I guess you do see a necessity of balancing against China. And we agree on the Middle East: troops out.

Here many sit bitching about military expenditures (maybe you, maybe not), yet when opportunity allows for course correction, we keep doing what we've done since 1945. I served over there and while that doesn't give me special credibility, it did open my eyes a little wider in what our mission is.
I'm thankful for your service and yes, I do think it gives you a better perspective on war and the actions of nations. (My grandfather was in Korea and his oldest brother on the beaches of Normandie.)

Veterans are generally speaking far more cautious of war, which is also evident in presidents such as TR and Eisenhower. They had a warrior's restraint and character that subsequent presidents have lacked.

The Europeans combined military is strong enough to take care of themselves. They don't need us: they use us. And our stupid gullible asses oomp-a-loomp right along.
I see your point. I really do. And of course the combined forces of the European military are strong enough to defeat decrepit Russia. But that is not what I am arguing against. I want the balance of power to reflect a situation in which Russia doesn't attempt to push the Eastern border closer to Poland. And the Visegrad nations (Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia) are actually the ones taking a greater responsibility to defend their own territories. Poland is even looking to reform the EU as a trade and military union of nation-states (http://inside-poland.com...).

America undoubtedly needs to disentangle, but we need to do so skillfully and place the responsibility in the hands of those who look to the future. That is to say, neither scared Germany nor vapid France nor collapsing Britain.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 7:58:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Actually, looking at how we utilize our military today, I'm for closing and terminating leases on ALL of our overseas bases, including Korea, Japan, and Okinawa. This also includes Howard in Panama.

It is not restraint, caution, or fear driving it. I want to maintain the strongest military in the world and continue war games including extending invitations to participate with Russia and China. Would they accept? I think we'd actually be surprised, especially with China.

For many years after 9-11, I wanted to drag the rest of the world into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if we had to, even by military force. We missed our window, however, and developing coop's, even with our 'enemies' Russia and China, makes more economic sense and a sense of shared responsibility.

A couple of weeks back people stateside got up in arms about a sukhoi buzzing a destroyer in the Baltic. We do that stuff all the time. It's not going to lead to a major ground war. I've pretty much come full circle to realize, in my opinion, there won't be a major, protracted, conventional war between the 4 great powers; us, Russia, China, euro bloc, in the next 50-75 years. We are all to intertwined. A major war could break out between powers like India-Pakistan, the Arabs/Persians, but our involvement should only be in the selling business.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:06:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 7:58:15 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Actually, looking at how we utilize our military today, I'm for closing and terminating leases on ALL of our overseas bases, including Korea, Japan, and Okinawa. This also includes Howard in Panama.
I'd say that would be too rash. Russia and China still need counterbalancing with the extra Joe in sight.

It is not restraint, caution, or fear driving it. I want to maintain the strongest military in the world and continue war games including extending invitations to participate with Russia and China. Would they accept? I think we'd actually be surprised, especially with China.
We do conduct war games. And Russia was allowed membership in the NATO program Partnership for Peace in 1994, which meant undertaking joint exercises and establishing a pathway for future members.

China is a bit difficult insofar as every exercise we have with Korea and the Philippines is viewed as a threat to its marine environment; and Japan, Korea, and the Philippines would likewise be worried if China and the U.S. conducted continuous drills in their waters.

For many years after 9-11, I wanted to drag the rest of the world into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if we had to, even by military force. We missed our window, however, and developing coop's, even with our 'enemies' Russia and China, makes more economic sense and a sense of shared responsibility.
In other words, you've reached a sound conclusion following the drawbacks of foreign entanglement.

It is also necessary that we come to terms with Russia and China for what they are, great powers with unique sets of interests -- territorial and extraterritorial -- including a mythical "Manifest Destiny" of their own. In this thread, however, we see individuals who have confused the Russian Manifest Destiny as an actual option for European nations. (Such a position is as self-deluding as for those who thought a post-Saddam Iraq would be a Jeffersonian constitutional republic.)

A couple of weeks back people stateside got up in arms about a sukhoi buzzing a destroyer in the Baltic. We do that stuff all the time. It's not going to lead to a major ground war.
I fully agree.

I've pretty much come full circle to realize, in my opinion, there won't be a major, protracted, conventional war between the 4 great powers; us, Russia, China, euro bloc, in the next 50-75 years. We are all to intertwined. A major war could break out between powers like India-Pakistan, the Arabs/Persians, but our involvement should only be in the selling business.
My recipe would be offshore balancing, as prescribed by John Mearsheimer (who knows the importance of ground v. air power). That's the American grand strategy for the 21st century. And we are getting there, step by each excruciating step, as we disentangle ourselves from the post-Cold War infrastructure.
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:22:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 7:04:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In Europe, the right wing is most associated with two things:
1. Euroscepticism (a wish that one's own country either would not be part of the European Union or would have a greater deal of autonomy within the union)
2. Anti-immigration sentiment (fear that immigrants, especially those from the Middle East, will usurp the natives of Europe and/or will replace the native culture with that of Sharia Law, and/or that the immigrants are bringing rampant crime and terrorism into Europe)

In 1993 that organisation which we call the European Union formally came into existence. It was founded upon the principles of liberal democracy, and could perhaps be seen as an offshoot of NATO. Two of the most notable achievements of the EU were the Euro, which was designed to be a single currency for the continent, and the Schengen Area, a free movement zone (that is, a French person can pass into Spain without a visa or without having to go through border control, and vise-versa). The Schengen Area stretches from Portugal to Finland.

The European Union drafts legislation for all of its member states. Those who don't wish to adopt said legislation must negotiate an opt-out.
Many people resent the idea of some people in Brussels (the de facto capital of the EU) deciding what they can and can't do. They feel that their own countries are losing their sovereignty to this continental organisation, and they don't like that one bit.
Furthermore, sometimes the EU's decisions are unpopular in their own right. Many people resented the bailout of Greece, and many people (especially those in the bigger, richer countries of Europe) fear that the EU will ultimately serve to redistribute wealth from them to those member states which had irresponsible fiscal policies for years on end. Many also see the bailouts (and the debt crises behind them) as evidence that one currency for many countries with different economic realities and policies is a horrible idea.

Then there's immigrants. In 2010 6% of the population of Europe was Muslim (compared with 0.9% in the USA); by 2030 this number is expected to rise to 8%. Many people have unrealistically high estimates of what the Muslim population in Europe will be by then. In any case, if current trends continue indefinitely we will eventually see a Muslim Europe. The recent migrant crisis has only served as a catalyst to this demographic change, with 1 million Muslim refugees entering Germany alone since 2015.
Beyond this, 2001 saw terrorism become the biggest perceived threat to societies around the world; Europe is no exception to this. These fears were revived after the recent wave of devastating ISIL terror attacks across the European continent.
Islamic immigration to Europe has also sparked fears of young Muslim men committing acts of sexual violence against European women. From 1997 to 2013 an estimated 1,400 children in the town of Rotherham were sexually abused by gang members of Pakistani descent. On the 2016 New Year's Eve, in Germany alone hundreds of cases of sexual assaults were reported, most of them committed against European women by Muslim men. Some have gone so far as to claim that in certain big cities of Europe, women no longer feel safe walking alone at night whereas they did feel relatively safe doing this only a few years ago; many feel that young Arab men come from cultures where misogyny and sexual violence against women is commonplace and that they're simply exporting these twisted values to their new homelands.
In light of the migrant crisis the EU has attempted to prevent member states from sealing their borders to these migrants, which in turn has made the EU less popular. Angel Merkel, one of the most refugee-friendly politicians on the continent, has been demonised by the general public.

Finally, on June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom voted in a popular referendum to leave the European Union. This will likely have a domino effect and end with other EU member states choosing to leave.
But where will they go? Will they simply stand alone against the EU and the immigrants?
Well, actually, there is an alternative to the EU and the US-led order in Europe.
That alternative is Russia, a great power country which is vehemently opposed to both the EU and Islamic immigration to Europe.
Furthermore, many of the countries which are most opposed to the EU and the Muslim immigrants are also the most conservative and religious countries in Europe. In Poland, for example, abortion is not readily available to any pregnant woman and instead is only allowed in specific circumstances. 87.5% of Poles are Catholic, and 65% of Catholic Poles attend church services on a regular basis. Same-sex marriage is not allowed in Poland, and same-sex couples are banned from adopting. In 2013 68% of Poles were opposed to same-sex marriage. Russia is also quite conservative, and in recent years the country has imposed increased restrictions on the homosexual lifestyle.
In short, Russia will likely serve as an alternative to those European countries which are unsatisfied with the prevailing liberal order promoted by the U.S. and the EU.

Id rather have the Iron Curtain cast upon Europe once more than to have Europe become the middle east
Im not a Nazi
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:48:54 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 9:06:59 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/6/2016 7:58:15 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Actually, looking at how we utilize our military today, I'm for closing and terminating leases on ALL of our overseas bases, including Korea, Japan, and Okinawa. This also includes Howard in Panama.
I'd say that would be too rash. Russia and China still need counterbalancing with the extra Joe in sight.

It is not restraint, caution, or fear driving it. I want to maintain the strongest military in the world and continue war games including extending invitations to participate with Russia and China. Would they accept? I think we'd actually be surprised, especially with China.
We do conduct war games. And Russia was allowed membership in the NATO program Partnership for Peace in 1994, which meant undertaking joint exercises and establishing a pathway for future members.

China is a bit difficult insofar as every exercise we have with Korea and the Philippines is viewed as a threat to its marine environment; and Japan, Korea, and the Philippines would likewise be worried if China and the U.S. conducted continuous drills in their waters.

For many years after 9-11, I wanted to drag the rest of the world into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if we had to, even by military force. We missed our window, however, and developing coop's, even with our 'enemies' Russia and China, makes more economic sense and a sense of shared responsibility.
In other words, you've reached a sound conclusion following the drawbacks of foreign entanglement.

It is also necessary that we come to terms with Russia and China for what they are, great powers with unique sets of interests -- territorial and extraterritorial -- including a mythical "Manifest Destiny" of their own. In this thread, however, we see individuals who have confused the Russian Manifest Destiny as an actual option for European nations. (Such a position is as self-deluding as for those who thought a post-Saddam Iraq would be a Jeffersonian constitutional republic.)

A couple of weeks back people stateside got up in arms about a sukhoi buzzing a destroyer in the Baltic. We do that stuff all the time. It's not going to lead to a major ground war.
I fully agree.

I've pretty much come full circle to realize, in my opinion, there won't be a major, protracted, conventional war between the 4 great powers; us, Russia, China, euro bloc, in the next 50-75 years. We are all to intertwined. A major war could break out between powers like India-Pakistan, the Arabs/Persians, but our involvement should only be in the selling business.
My recipe would be offshore balancing, as prescribed by John Mearsheimer (who knows the importance of ground v. air power). That's the American grand strategy for the 21st century. And we are getting there, step by each excruciating step, as we disentangle ourselves from the post-Cold War infrastructure.

So, from completely opposite political pov's, people can agree on major issues if the communicate vs having pissing contests. I would contend the only disagreement would be the rapidity of the dis entanglement.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:51:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 9:48:54 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
So, from completely opposite political pov's, people can agree on major issues if the communicate vs having pissing contests. I would contend the only disagreement would be the rapidity of the dis entanglement.
I agree every step of the way.
AnnaCzereda
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:52:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 7:04:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Well, actually, there is an alternative to the EU and the US-led order in Europe.
That alternative is Russia, a great power country which is vehemently opposed to both the EU and Islamic immigration to Europe...
In short, Russia will likely serve as an alternative to those European countries which are unsatisfied with the prevailing liberal order promoted by the U.S. and the EU.

It's a false dilemma: the European Union or Russia. I think Great Britain can stand on its own. When it comes to Poland, it can also stand on its own though it is in our interest to belong to the EU as we receive financial support from there. However, it doesn't mean that our government is under the obligation to accept any silly decisions the European Commission makes. Let's take immigration crisis, for example. Why should we accept the Muslim immigrants in spite of the fact that they don't want to be here? Their destination are countries with the rich welfare system so that they can leech on it. The irresponsible immigration policy of the EU bureaucrats led to the crisis but, if the individual member countries are stubborn enough, they can have their way. Closing the borders against immigrants and building barbed wire fences caused protests initially but Hungary and Poland had their way. Now the whole European Union is talking about the necessity of securing the outer borders.

Poland has never supported Russia. In fact, it always strongly advocated imposing economic sanctions on Russia for the war in Ukraine and securing the Eastern border.
He wished to turn his countenance from the smoldering rubble, but saw from amidst the embers that a few chaff would not burn away. To these, he stared into the eye of God sneering, and called them, 'Promethean.'
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 9:57:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
As a child of a family who immigrated here from France after ww2, I have to say, once I started being able comprehend things at 7, you guys were in the beginning of the solidarity movement.

Always respected the heck out of your country :)
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:00:53 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 9:52:11 PM, AnnaCzereda wrote:
At 9/4/2016 7:04:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Well, actually, there is an alternative to the EU and the US-led order in Europe.
That alternative is Russia, a great power country which is vehemently opposed to both the EU and Islamic immigration to Europe...
In short, Russia will likely serve as an alternative to those European countries which are unsatisfied with the prevailing liberal order promoted by the U.S. and the EU.

It's a false dilemma: the European Union or Russia. I think Great Britain can stand on its own. When it comes to Poland, it can also stand on its own though it is in our interest to belong to the EU as we receive financial support from there. However, it doesn't mean that our government is under the obligation to accept any silly decisions the European Commission makes. Let's take immigration crisis, for example. Why should we accept the Muslim immigrants in spite of the fact that they don't want to be here? Their destination are countries with the rich welfare system so that they can leech on it. The irresponsible immigration policy of the EU bureaucrats led to the crisis but, if the individual member countries are stubborn enough, they can have their way. Closing the borders against immigrants and building barbed wire fences caused protests initially but Hungary and Poland had their way. Now the whole European Union is talking about the necessity of securing the outer borders.

Poland has never supported Russia. In fact, it always strongly advocated imposing economic sanctions on Russia for the war in Ukraine and securing the Eastern border.

I don't see the UK ever aligning with Russia. They'll likely remain tied to the United States and the European continent (despite the Brexit). Their country was a co-architect of the Atlanticist continental order that has provided stability and economic prosperity to Europe.
I'm talking about Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and the likes. They simply have to get over their aversion to Russia (a country which cannot be blamed for the actions of the U.S.S.R.) first and realise that Russia has a lot in common with them.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
AnnaCzereda
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:17:49 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:00:53 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm talking about Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and the likes. They simply have to get over their aversion to Russia (a country which cannot be blamed for the actions of the U.S.S.R.) first and realise that Russia has a lot in common with them.

Actually, it doesn't. Russia is an authoritarian country and its interests have never been in agreement with the interests of Poland. It has always been an enemy.

Overcome the aversion? You know what happens to rats who under the influence of toxoplasmosis start loving cats?
He wished to turn his countenance from the smoldering rubble, but saw from amidst the embers that a few chaff would not burn away. To these, he stared into the eye of God sneering, and called them, 'Promethean.'
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 10:21:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Easy for us to tell them to get over it but they were the ones invaded not so long ago and their rebellions were violently squashed. I understand their concern... But it is their, not our, concern. They want to build up a coalition and forces to stand up to the bear, more power to them. Our involvement should only be in selling, not supplying, arms.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 11:51:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:21:00 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Easy for us to tell them to get over it but they were the ones invaded not so long ago and their rebellions were violently squashed. I understand their concern... But it is their, not our, concern. They want to build up a coalition and forces to stand up to the bear, more power to them. Our involvement should only be in selling, not supplying, arms.

Russia hasn't done anything to Poland in an incredibly long time. The Soviet Union invaded the country in 1939, but the Soviet Union wasn't Russia.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 11:54:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 11:51:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:21:00 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Easy for us to tell them to get over it but they were the ones invaded not so long ago and their rebellions were violently squashed. I understand their concern... But it is their, not our, concern. They want to build up a coalition and forces to stand up to the bear, more power to them. Our involvement should only be in selling, not supplying, arms.

Russia hasn't done anything to Poland in an incredibly long time. The Soviet Union invaded the country in 1939, but the Soviet Union wasn't Russia.

Notice my main point: they can do what they like. But it should be without our interference or support. They are a sovereign country.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 6:11:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 10:17:49 PM, AnnaCzereda wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. Russia is an authoritarian country and its interests have never been in agreement with the interests of Poland. It has always been an enemy.

Overcome the aversion? You know what happens to rats who under the influence of toxoplasmosis start loving cats?
Sorry to but in, but you are arguing with an extremist (Vox Veritas) who thinks "racial identity" is the core aspect of politics.

He has no understanding of history, geography, geopolitics, culture, or religion (the thousand-year divide between Catholic and Orthodox Europe). In their place, he and the other extremists (PPN would be your equivalent in Poland) see the racial contiguity of the Slavs, pan-Slavism, as an ordering principle for Eastern Europe.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 6:33:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 6:11:28 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:17:49 PM, AnnaCzereda wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. Russia is an authoritarian country and its interests have never been in agreement with the interests of Poland. It has always been an enemy.

Overcome the aversion? You know what happens to rats who under the influence of toxoplasmosis start loving cats?
Sorry to but in, but you are arguing with an extremist (Vox Veritas) who thinks "racial identity" is the core aspect of politics.

He has no understanding of history, geography, geopolitics, culture, or religion (the thousand-year divide between Catholic and Orthodox Europe). In their place, he and the other extremists (PPN would be your equivalent in Poland) see the racial contiguity of the Slavs, pan-Slavism, as an ordering principle for Eastern Europe.

Hey pan slavism... Only one of the major contributors to a tiny skirmish 1914-1918...
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 6:47:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 6:33:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Hey pan slavism... Only one of the major contributors to a tiny skirmish 1914-1918...
Indeed. That's why Poland is doing the right thing to boost its defenses and strengthening its defense and security ties with Czechia, Hungary, and Slovakia. As long as they keep a strong aggregate of Intermarium nations (from Lithuania to Romania), the balance of power will be satisfied. It required a Nazi-Soviet Pact to break it down in 1939.

On a side note, I wonder if the OP really understands the historical significance of pan-Slavism.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 7:45:03 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 6:47:45 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/7/2016 6:33:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Hey pan slavism... Only one of the major contributors to a tiny skirmish 1914-1918...
Indeed. That's why Poland is doing the right thing to boost its defenses and strengthening its defense and security ties with Czechia, Hungary, and Slovakia. As long as they keep a strong aggregate of Intermarium nations (from Lithuania to Romania), the balance of power will be satisfied. It required a Nazi-Soviet Pact to break it down in 1939.

On a side note, I wonder if the OP really understands the historical significance of pan-Slavism.

Doubtful.

So I hope, since this is very relevant to the titled topic, people read this and note the irony which I am sure will outrage some. It involves a su-27 (that's a sukhoi) and no this isn't the buzzing of the destroyer in the Baltic in April. This ones better! And disclaimer, I am in no way upset... The title says it all.

http://insider.foxnews.com...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 8:14:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 6:11:28 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/6/2016 10:17:49 PM, AnnaCzereda wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. Russia is an authoritarian country and its interests have never been in agreement with the interests of Poland. It has always been an enemy.

Overcome the aversion? You know what happens to rats who under the influence of toxoplasmosis start loving cats?
Sorry to but in, but you are arguing with an extremist (Vox Veritas) who thinks "racial identity" is the core aspect of politics.

I do read what people post in this thread, you know.

He has no understanding of history, geography, geopolitics, culture, or religion (the thousand-year divide between Catholic and Orthodox Europe). In their place, he and the other extremists (PPN would be your equivalent in Poland) see the racial contiguity of the Slavs, pan-Slavism, as an ordering principle for Eastern Europe.

I understand the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. I know of the East-West Schism of 1054 which occurred over the issue of iconoclasm. I understand that the East Slavs and the West Slavs have not traditionally identified with each other, just like the Germanic nations of France, England, and Germany haven't gotten along well historically.
However, this is the 21st century. I don't see interdenominational differences as being all that important anymore; both Poland and Russia are uneasy about the large number of Islamic immigrants who are entering the continent by the millions each year, and so in this respect they share a common interest.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 8:19:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 6:47:45 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/7/2016 6:33:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Hey pan slavism... Only one of the major contributors to a tiny skirmish 1914-1918...
Indeed. That's why Poland is doing the right thing to boost its defenses and strengthening its defense and security ties with Czechia, Hungary, and Slovakia. As long as they keep a strong aggregate of Intermarium nations (from Lithuania to Romania), the balance of power will be satisfied. It required a Nazi-Soviet Pact to break it down in 1939.

On a side note, I wonder if the OP really understands the historical significance of pan-Slavism.

I understand that Eastern Pan-Slavism exists among many people of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in the form of the "All-Russian Nation" ideal.
I understand that Yugoslavia was established as a united country for the South Slavs. I understand that it hasn't really been that much of a thing among the West Slavs.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 9:14:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 8:19:33 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/7/2016 6:47:45 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/7/2016 6:33:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Hey pan slavism... Only one of the major contributors to a tiny skirmish 1914-1918...
Indeed. That's why Poland is doing the right thing to boost its defenses and strengthening its defense and security ties with Czechia, Hungary, and Slovakia. As long as they keep a strong aggregate of Intermarium nations (from Lithuania to Romania), the balance of power will be satisfied. It required a Nazi-Soviet Pact to break it down in 1939.

On a side note, I wonder if the OP really understands the historical significance of pan-Slavism.

I understand that Eastern Pan-Slavism exists among many people of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in the form of the "All-Russian Nation" ideal.
I understand that Yugoslavia was established as a united country for the South Slavs. I understand that it hasn't really been that much of a thing among the West Slavs.

The western slaves have taken a beating from the eastern while the southern have more close allied with the eastern. Then throw in the German of Czech and the Magyars of Hungary and you got one great big cluster
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 3:37:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 8:14:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I do read what people post in this thread, you know.
Good for you. Hopefully, you can go one step further and revisit the lack of historical, geographical, geopolitical, cultural and religious discrepancies in your opening post.

I understand the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. I know of the East-West Schism of 1054 which occurred over the issue of iconoclasm. I understand that the East Slavs and the West Slavs have not traditionally identified with each other, just like the Germanic nations of France, England, and Germany haven't gotten along well historically.
That's a start. And now that we have the proper historical background, underscoring that the two orders are separated by a thousand years of tradition, let's convert this information into practical knowledge.

Stymie13 provided a context above. I'll add to it (re: https://en.wikipedia.org...). This time, think geopolitics and national interest instead of applying the fallacy of "Slavic brotherhood."

However, this is the 21st century.
Liberal-progressive nonsense.

Those very words were in fact spoken by John Kerry in his criticism of Russian revanchism: "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text" (re: Crimea http://www.reuters.com...).