Asking as a fellow European (HU)

Basically Germany's entire foreign policy is economic suicide and very much driven by a US stooge (Baerbock). The total penetration of the German Green Party (formerly pacifist) is an excellent example of American influence.

Sanctions on Russian energy are a response to invasion. Apart from moral reasons, they also are meant to cripple russia so we don't have to fight them later in the baltics, in poland or romania.

So it's pretty much EU self interest here.

I might get downvoted for this, but the duty of every head of state is to ensure its country's economic and citizens well being is above anything else.

And what the EU as a whole did was exactly the opposite with the sanctions.

And no, no one would have had to fight anywhere else in Europe.

They are doing that by ensuring future conflict is much more unlikely.

If these measures were done earlier perhaps russia would not have started current invasion and we'd be much better off.

So perhaps politicians failed by being compliant up to now.

Try telling the baltics, poland, romania that they should not fear russia and continue trading... Same countries russia constantly threatens and are part of EU and NATO.

Imagine germany's position if Poland is conquered by russia.

> And no, no one would have had to fight anywhere else in Europe.

That's a bold statement considering russia's posturing, threats, history and leaked initial plans.

I’m very proud of that and I think cutting dependency on Russian gas – while we might not have necessarily wished for it to go this fast – is just plain good policy, making Germany more resilient in the future. Obviously there have been some short term bad consequences, that‘s pretty much unavoidable with any such drastic shift. But consequences have been far from catastrophic or existential for us. Germans and Europeans are going through some times that are a bit tougher – the people suffering, however, are in Ukraine.

I see Germany and Europe coming out of this more resilient and safer, especially if we make sure Putin cannot win this war.

https://www.reddit.com/r/latvia/comments/tdct34/russian_mili...

This article says the speaker is "Colonel Igor Korotchenko, formerly of the Russian General Staff and air force and currently a reserve officer".

https://www.thesun.ie/news/8513264/russian-state-tv-discusse...

This time we're tripping over ourselves to to make life harder for the Russians no matter the cost, seemingly lacking any self awareness.

Europe desperately needs its own army.

Ha! Do you not remember the Time making Putin a person of the year? They encouraged it back in 2009

1. With US diplomacy this war could have been avoided.

2. The US could fund and arm Ukraine entirely by itself if it wanted

The EU benefits in 0 ways from this war, which could have been avoided. German industry, the driver of the EU economy is basically destroyed without cheap Russian energy. Some say this is WHY the US provoked this war, to destroy the alliance between Russian energy and German industry.

Now knowing this, joining sanctions against Russian which barely work, for a continent that doesn’t have its own energy (unlike the us), is basically suicide. India, China, lots of other countries are still buying Russian energy.

Sending arms to Ukraine - by the EU it’s unnecessary. The US could do it, and they are part of this war. It’s also completely neutered EU defense by now.

I’m not pro Russia. I think the Russian army is one of the most inhumane and evil on earth. Putin is evil and a psychopath. The Russians deserve to be destroyed.

But - this is about US geopolitics, so the US should be doing the destroying. The EU leadership is committing geopolitical and economic suicide right now, which will make us way more vulnerable and poor.

Let the US sanction Russia, arm Ukraine, etc. great. The EU should meanwhile stand up for its own long term interest.

This entire war is like your average guy standing up to a bully and getting beat pretty bad, while the martial arts expert standing next to him is egging him on but not really joining. It’s ridiculous by the martial arts expert not to really commit, and send someone else instead. I know it’s not a perfect analogy as the US is taking part, but it’s close.

Russians desperately want to present the idea that they truly fight powerful US and NATO and still pushing; and not getting kicked ass by Ukraine getting 5% of US defense budget.

Do you believe that enabling the Russians in preventing countries around them from becoming more aligned with the EU would benefit Europe?

Do you think the US is the only NATO country?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/07/eu-us-di...

> Do you think the US is the only NATO country?

in the same way that ussr was the only country that mattered in the warsaw pact

Could you then explain why it would be in the interest of European countries not to react to Russia invading countries on their doorstep? It seems inconceivable to me that European countries wouldn’t have reacted with sanctions and arms for Ukraine even if the US had kept completely out of it.

It seems crystal clear to me that making sure that Russia cannot win this war is both in the interest of the US but also and especially the interest of European countries. You don’t want a dictator that invades neighbors and is successful at that at your doorstep.

The list of NATO interventions are: former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, and counter-piracy in Yemen.

The list of Warsaw Pact interventions: invading Hungary and Czechoslovakia when they wanted to leave.

Quite a distinction. Only one of the NATO interventions was driven by the foreign policy of the US--all of the others were being driven more by Europeans' foreign policy concerns.

> Anything else is just victim blaming Russian propaganda that tries to justify Russia's naked imperialism.

That's such a narrow and poor way to talk about international politics, and it is exactly the reason why we have a war in Europe, and broken countries like Syria and Libya on our doorstep. Even if your intentions are good, it is worthless if the consequences are terrible. In general the "everything that doesn't align with my worldview is propaganda" is a pretty good sign someone loves eating propaganda.

Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin is a lunatic who wanted Ukrainian land to be part of Russia because he things that would cement his legacy. That is the only reason. Everything else is lies. The invasion has caused Finland to join NATO, which was a predictable consequence of the invasion.

Because Germany was dumb enough to make itself energy dependent on gas from Russia, a warmongering country lead by an autocrat, that having invaded several countries in recent years (Ukraine, Chechnya, Georgia, Syria) and supporting military separatists in various European countries (Transnistria in Moldova), and despite the US warning them several times about this risk.

But chasing the sweet teat of cheap Russian gas like a dog in heat was too good too pass for German industrialists who saw only easy money, so all national security concerns went out the window.

Maybe Germans will vote better next time and realize you can't have a heavy industry while being non-nuclear and also energy dependent on an adversary.

If you use your brain for a second, the answer is easy.

Chechnya is part of Russia. Country can not invade itself. It can commit atrocities against their own and this is what Russia did during the war. This happened because Chechnya tried to secede. Unilateral secession of the region will not be appreciated in any country and will likely lead to internal war and this is what did happen.

In Syria Russia was invited by their official government. You might not like the government and for good reasons but it is irrelevant. Btw what legal basis other countries have being in Syria?

Try doing a bit of fact checking when posting.

And while you bitch about Germany - The US and Canada for example had industry / manufacturing largely destroyed by moving it to China. If for example China disappears tomorrow we are fucked big time for a while. Not sure how long it'll take to restore our independence from 3rd world manufacturing. It is general trait - if companies can earn extra buck doing something they would do it no matter what unless stopped by Government (which they largely own).

when thinking about syria please remember that ASSAD MUST GO

And yes, no real difference from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.' If those places wanted to secede, and the US bombed them flat, would many be supportive of the US "legal right" to do so?

If you want to go that far come back to me when you return California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming to Mexico. And this is a beef just between 2 countries. There are many more.

Besides nobody gives a fuck about your "not really". What matters is what is recognized by the other countries and they accept Chechnya being part of Russia

No, that doesn't matter. It's still an occupation. Many people in the Caucasus gave and do give a "flying fuck."

It's also why they campaigned in Georgia, and in Ukraine, and why all the ex-USSR states are convinced that they are targets.

Your logic seems to be completely twisted. Good luck. I've lost interest to this conversation.

I do not think the US would give a flying fuck about any country being un-supportive in this particular matter.

And the worst part is they even fail at providing a good single market. You still can't work for a Spanish company from Germany (without being a freelancer), or pay your taxes in Spain with a French bank account. If you start a company, hiring across Europe means having local payroll offices to handle local taxes and labour laws in local languages in every single country (and possibly more internal autonomous regions). Trade unions differ in every country so there's no central negotiations.

Residence registration and ID is done independently in every single country, so you might be delayed by months when moving for work.

This is what we have in the EU at the moment - VDL as a "compromise" between Center-Right, Center-Left, Center, "South-bloc" and "North-bloc", coming from the party that won the election.

None of the other major party candidates would have been able to form a commission (maybe Margarethe Vestager, but then the party arriving third would have won, which would have been weird and undemocratic to some.)

I know some people would rather have the head of the commission elected directly - but, seing the crazyness of French system, completely centered on the election of a single person, I'm starting to reconsider...

As for being a "puppet state", well... I guess we come back at the US by forcing people to implement GDPR popups ;) ?

Right now VdL has just failed upwards, being a terrible politician in Germany who was moved to the EU to get her out of domestic politics, and it seems she'll be NATO leader soon (again unelected).

The ePrivacy Directive is different from the GDPR btw. The GDPR is actually not so bad tbh - although a bit too over-reaching, but at least it's a step towards making some things like I mentioned in the previous comment a bit more uniform.

The Parliament is also very weak and can't propose laws, etc.

I guess Californians and Texans can both vote for local politicians under the same party, but nothing force the politicians to vote together once in Congress ?

Also, I think as a bloc, the EU is not entirely ready yet for, say, French people to directly vote for non French people. But who knows.

As for the balance of powers in the EU, it's far from perfect. But coming from France, who am I to judge ?

I'm not sure I get your point. The European Parlement Election _is_ held accross all EU contries "almost" at the same time. It's spread accross a few days to respect the voting tradition of each member state, but the campaign very much happen at the same time for everyone.

There were debates between the "heads", but there you hit the language barrier - we're not going to see a Spanish candidate arguing with a German one in English on French Television any time soon.

> Like have French, Spanish, Greek, Swedes, Germans, etc. all debating and voting - and people would actually know the background of who the President of the EU commission is!

To be honest, the 2019 elections were the first time it _did_ felt like the voting was occuring across the bloc. Each cross-european party had a few clear faces for candidates for the Commission, beforehand.

Had the PPE received a clear majority, we would be talking about the Webber Commission - except, no-one really won, and they had to pick a compromise candidate.

> Right now VdL has just failed upwards

She is the grand tradition of the parlementary leaders chosen because they were "the least worse alternative", and "bad enough to be acceptable by everyone."

Again, I don't know if it is structural, or just the result of an election without a clear majority.

I understand this is an issue because she was only known in Germany. Would it have been better to at least choose a "compromise candidate" that had previous EU-level experience ?

Ironically, you have to notice that the British People did not vote for Sunak either ;)

I don't know what's the structural way to avoid "an elected body not agreeing on a name chosen before the election". Do you stick to the name, until you reach gridlock ? Do you setup your elections to ensure a clear majority, artifically reducing the diversity of your electorate until you have a duopoly ?

But VdL is the head of the Commission not Parliament (which is also far too weak IMO). The equivalent would be the King in Britain, which is obviously even worse, same for the House of Lords, etc. but two wrongs don't make a right.

I think really the Parliament should be more powerful with PR voting for the European blocs directly rather than local parties with the lists, etc. and the President should also be directly elected.

Basically give the EU parliament more power in return for greater democracy.