Nope. EU bureaucrats are, like the national civil servants of most European countries, mostly long-service state employees. Flip-flopping between the bureaucracy & private employment is very rare: shifts from one to another, when they occur, are usually permanent.
Tensions in the Baltic
- Thread starter CheeZe
- Start date
In all honesty, and I think I've said it before, Putin and Co. should hang (going all the way to Yeltsin and the rest of the crooks at Belovezhskaya Puscha). But the fact that Putin is bad doesn't excuse the behavior of certain western powers. In fact the misbehavior of other great powers is what gives Putin, in many ways, the license to act the way he does. Every time a western country chooses to ignore international law and invade a third world hell-hole for whatever reason, it licenses Putin to support rebels in Ukraine. If your entire argument is that the west behaves in a somewhat less vile manner then Putin, fine. But to me, you're trying to distinguish varieties of pig shit by smell. And given that other great powers have had more political and even military power recently, and have thrown their power around quite frequently, one might even argue that while their actions and decision-making are less wrong, there is more blood on their hands because the scope of their actions is greater.
Yes. The west has learned that you can dominate a territory politically, economically, and culturally, without physically controlling it. Russia has yet to learn that lesson.
On the other hand one might regard the EU as an entity that's looking to claim territory, and in light of the blatant attempts to infringe on individual states sovereignty within the EU (like attempts to force Eastern European countries to take in refugees that they don't want, or trying to force a united foreign policy stance), I don't think this would be an unfair view.
Sorry, where do you see elements of Stalin's USSR in modern day Russia? I agree that Russia's relations with the near abroad are heavily influenced by history, and iirc I've been one to point to that history as a way of understanding the patterns in that region before. But as best as I can tell, he's trying to revive something pre-USSR, and is doing so intentionally. This gives him ideological freedom, and allows him to pretend to be a political moderate. And forced migration isn't anything new either. Ethnic violence against the Russian population of Chechnya in the early 90s, for example, has profoundly altered the makeup of the population there. Ethnic violence in Georgia (going in all directions) has changed the situation there as well. The war in eastern Ukraine has caused a mass exodus, one that is largely being not talked about, but one that has certainly changed the situation there as well. I would not be surprised to discover Russian ethnic majorities in rebel-held parts of Lugansk and Donetsk regions. Not all of these instances rise to the level of ethnic cleansing (and not all forced migrations are ethnic cleansing, I don't think we can equate the two) but it's not ancient history, it's not even history at all. It's an ongoing process. Nor is Russia state action the only cause, or even the primary cause here. During the Stalin era a lot of populations were resettled involuntarily and quite brutally due to internal plans of the Union-level regime, and political moves by various republic leadership within the Union. The involuntary population movements due to war or ethnic cleansing in the post-Soviet era have been quite different in nature.
The EU is the opposite of an entity looking to claim territory. It's an entity which territories attempt to join, & which accepts them rather reluctantly, & sometimes not at all,
Nobody is invited to join. It imposes strict conditions on any country which wishes to join. Applicants have to go through a drawn-out process, satisfy all the conditions stage by stage, & then they're finally allowed in - if the existing members accept them.
Some current members had applications blocked, & had to try again before finally being admitted, one country's been told that it doesn't even qualify for becoming a candidate for future membership & there's no prospect that it will so it can't even make a formal application, & there are other countries queuing up to join. It can take a decade or more even to be granted the status of a candidate for membership, allowed to begin negotiations with a view to joining.
Nobody is invited to join. It imposes strict conditions on any country which wishes to join. Applicants have to go through a drawn-out process, satisfy all the conditions stage by stage, & then they're finally allowed in - if the existing members accept them.
Some current members had applications blocked, & had to try again before finally being admitted, one country's been told that it doesn't even qualify for becoming a candidate for future membership & there's no prospect that it will so it can't even make a formal application, & there are other countries queuing up to join. It can take a decade or more even to be granted the status of a candidate for membership, allowed to begin negotiations with a view to joining.
Come now. Why, with Russia, are you so willing to dig under the carpet but with the EU you want to pretend that everything is as it ought to be, and look no further? Take Ukraine, for example. On the elites level there is no real desire to join the EU, and there have been barely any substantive steps taken towards the goal. Instead the desire exists among the general public, not because they understand the EU and its implications (a complex subject that not many scholars of political science can claim to understand fully) but because to them the EU has replaced communism, as an ideal future where everything will be sunny.* These notions were encouraged and supported with western money spent on democracy promotion and organizing public actions by various groups without clear and tangible political goals, culminating in the Euro-Maydan. Western politicians visited, handed out cookies, funneled activists and money, all to back this nominally pro-Western protest movement that was really more about being fed up with the corrupt bastards at home then about an informed desire to join the EU specifically. Yet the EU didn't offer Ukraine membership (which, with a heavy cost, would also come with some serious benefits). Instead they offered the Association Agreement. A paper that imposed the costs without the benefits. All the while pretending that this wasn't about taking over a new market, but instead was about democracy. In fact the EU was just fine with letting Yanukovich run the show, his criminal past and disgusting present notwithstanding. They even offered him a 20 billion bribe, sorry, "economic aid package". An offer he was smart enough to not want to take, and an offer that was rapidly rescinded when the "pro-Western" government took office. No need to bribe people you put there yourself, they already have no choice but to sign.
But yes. Formally you have to try to join, and it's hard to get in, and countries do get kept out. The EU isn't out to acquire influence or territory. It's just a voluntary association of democracies, here to promote puppies and freedom.
*Note, of course these notions are also promoted by the fact that Ukraine is a third world country, while the EU is mostly first-world. But this certainly does not mean that the EU has a reliable recipe that will get Ukraine from point A to point B. In fact, given nature of the association agreement, and the willingness of the EU to deal with less then reputable political partners within Ukraine, one might argue a profound lack of desire in taking on Ukraine as a project.
I'm afraid you're confusing separate issues.
One, W. European countries want friendly neighbours. They're prepared to pay to get that, in the form of aid.
There's also (& this is something that I find Russians are generally baffled by) an element of ideologically-backed altruism. They sincerely believe that democracy, human rights & so on are good things, & they wish to promote them. That doesn't preclude deep cynicism on their part in other respects, & it's also affected by their belief that democratic countries which respect human rights will be good neighbours, but even the most power-hungry & self-serving mainstream politicians in western Europe generally really do think that democracy & everything that goes with it is good, & worth promoting. It sometimes leads them to make mistakes when dealing with countries where social & political conditions are very different from those they're used to.
And you're wrong, completely wrong, about the EU being expansionist. There are arguments about whether it was right to accept some of the existing members, arguments about whether to allow in some of the current candidates even if they manage to meet the conditions, & flat refusal by many (most?) to believe in the possibility of some countries ever being candidates - e.g. Ukraine. The current members have to agree to admit new members. There's no driving force to expand.
BTW, the admission of most of E. Europe was seen as welcoming back long-lost brothers by many, a return to a previous era of open borders (to travel & trade) between Russia & the Atlantic. That's finished. Everywhere it covered is now in the EU, or has chosen to stay out - & is left to stay out, as it wishes.
One, W. European countries want friendly neighbours. They're prepared to pay to get that, in the form of aid.
There's also (& this is something that I find Russians are generally baffled by) an element of ideologically-backed altruism. They sincerely believe that democracy, human rights & so on are good things, & they wish to promote them. That doesn't preclude deep cynicism on their part in other respects, & it's also affected by their belief that democratic countries which respect human rights will be good neighbours, but even the most power-hungry & self-serving mainstream politicians in western Europe generally really do think that democracy & everything that goes with it is good, & worth promoting. It sometimes leads them to make mistakes when dealing with countries where social & political conditions are very different from those they're used to.
And you're wrong, completely wrong, about the EU being expansionist. There are arguments about whether it was right to accept some of the existing members, arguments about whether to allow in some of the current candidates even if they manage to meet the conditions, & flat refusal by many (most?) to believe in the possibility of some countries ever being candidates - e.g. Ukraine. The current members have to agree to admit new members. There's no driving force to expand.
BTW, the admission of most of E. Europe was seen as welcoming back long-lost brothers by many, a return to a previous era of open borders (to travel & trade) between Russia & the Atlantic. That's finished. Everywhere it covered is now in the EU, or has chosen to stay out - & is left to stay out, as it wishes.
They're not alone. Russia has paid Belarus quite dearly to remain friendly, and this is not the only example. The West is hardly unique in this.
It's not altruism. It goes back to the first point you make. There's an ideological component here, yes I agree. But here we get into the fact that states are not black box rational actors. There are a whole slew of under currents, and in liberal-democratic regimes the under currents can dominate the political agenda. While the President may genuinely believe that he is out to help Ukrainian democracy, he is elected with corporate money, and that corporate money cares little for democracy or politics at all. They want their economic interests protected at any cost. Hence what politically is being presented as a deal to promote Ukrainian integration into Europe is really a treaty created by robber-barons to take over a new market. The political elites altruistically battle evil Russia in the name of freedom, while the economic elites quietly ensure that their interests come first. Such is the nature of capitalism. Economics are the basis for the political superstructure, not vice-versa.
I'm sorry but no matter how you want to talk about it, the EU has expanded rapidly, and has fought against Russia politically and economically (sanctions, trade barriers, democracy promotion) to take countries and markets. If Russia funded a political party in the west, that played a central role in the national politics of a large country, overthrowing an elected government and inserting itself into its place, Russia would be accused of supporting an illegal coup d'etat. When the EU does the same in Ukraine, it's "non-expansionism and altruism". Really?
The driving force exists at the Union level. While many individual member states have a problem with rapid expansion, the EU as an entity doesn't. And it's continued and successful attempts to suppress individual states sovereignty in the name of presenting a united front or adopting a united policy are evidence of that. It's easier to pressure a large number of smaller (relative to the total size) countries. What chances does Hungary have of unilaterally opposing an EU-wide policy on sanctions? Basically none. But imagine if the EU consisted of only Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and the Benelux. And Italy and France were opposed to the sanctions while Germany and Britain were for them. Now it only takes two countries, and the EU has to behave like an international organization, a forum of countries, rather them a country itself.
Re-annexing Ukraine is welcoming back long-lost brothers and a return to an era of Slavic unity and friendship.
As for countries wishing, if you're in the business of interfering directly in internal political processes, the idea that they are "left as they wish" is patently absurd. Hence why democracy promotion and economic bribery/bullying are simply different means of coercion. Soft power is power none the less, and can be wielded to devastating effect. The fact that the EU prefers to use it as means of expansion simply shows that they are better at it then Russia.