European Politics

Brigantium said:
Instead of descending into another left v right argument, perhaps we could get back to the original issue which was how Europe deals with Putin.

Azas - I understand again how strongly you feel about other countries not doing enough for Ukraine to rushing to defend Russia's neighbours. I'd hoped some of the discussions a couple of months back indicated that some European countries were seriously considering their options in the absence of America (or rather Trump indicating he wants to keep Putin as a buddy).

But we're left with the same old problem. Putin has a LOT of nukes on his side and is probably unhinged enough to use them. Plus you'd need to guarantee that most of Europe would work together in a co-ordinated way and that's almost certainly not going to happen.
Click to expand...
I totally get Europe’s “let’s be careful with him, he has nukes” position. But think about it—putin is counting on that. He knows the West plays by the rules, that it’s reasonable. So of course he’ll flash that ace card whenever he senses the West’s unity cracking. That’s his whole game.

And most importantly—he can only play this card by not actually playing it. The moment he were to really use nukes, he’d become target number one. He’d cross a point of no return, and that transformation would bring massive problems for him. So yeah, he knows the game and will always walk that edge.

Meanwhile, the West, being perfectly reasonable, can’t bet with 100% certainty that putin won’t use nukes—so Europe responds the way it does. I’ve said it many times: there’s a big difference between a kleptocrat billionaire and a suicide bomber. A huge difference.

The only scenario where I see putin actually using nukes is if the West were to truly invade russia—which is absolutely not on the table. Ukraine just needs support—lots of it—and arms. And also, much stricter sanctions. No more of this European countries ramping up exports to Kazakhstan and similar places when it’s painfully obvious that the goods end up in russia. But Europe turns a blind eye. Their businesses can’t take the hit because that would cause a crisis, etc.—and so the faulty cycle just keeps rolling on, years into the war. It’s incredibly frustrating.

And now, with the U.S. becoming unreliable, everything’s even more complicated. You can clearly see it—russia is increasing attacks on civilian homes lately. Why? Because putin sees the West in a phase of decline (thanks to Trump’s stance), and he’s stepping up the destruction, knowing he’ll get away with it. And every so often, he’ll wave that one and only ace card of his.

The game goes on.
 
It does. How does Europe deal with it though? I agree with tougher restrictions. I know people who buy from small Russian businesses one way or another 'because it's not their fault, they're nice people'.

I'm not sure Putin cares if Russia's economy goes to rot, though. He has an ego a mile wide and will absolutely not do anything that makes a dent on it.

I don't think you can count on Russian people saying no to him either. He and his closest oligarchs are too powerful. He's bumped off the ones that showed any hint of dissent, and killed off political rivals too. Russia also has a very long history of having little choice but the accept what it's rulers impose.

I don't see him using nukes on Europe at large in one go, but I do see him using them on Ukraine and any other individual country he's at war with.
 
Brigantium said:
I don't see him using nukes on Europe at large in one go, but I do see him using them on Ukraine and any other individual country he's at war with.
Click to expand...

Once he uses them - anywhere - my guess is the situation is going to change, I think China will then step in and ensure some sort of involuntary succession of powers at the very least, because this is something that no-one of the big game players will have tolerance for and especially with your close neighbour, but we'll see about that.

Otherwise, I don't disagree with what you say, although IMHO Russia really is kind of a paper tiger and pretty fucked up whatever happens next. The economics were always terrible (most people that had the misfortune to actually visit it do report that it was somewhat of a failed state even before the "three-day special operation in Ukraine") and with them orienting now full towards wartime economics (which can give a boost in the short term) is tantamount to suicide; after the war ends (and regardless of whether by a win, a lose or a stalemate) they have nowhere to continue next so as not to unnerve their close neighbours and the shift to peacetime economy really hurts; it was a huge problem for large and fairly healthy economies in the past; with Russia who has almost nothing except for valuable primary sources it's going to bring the state down completely, medium/long term.

The other problem is with how clientelistic, corrupt and somewhat unstable the country is, once Putin - who kinda is able to hold the mess together, via his strongman image and the sheer willpower - is gone, it means more serious trouble. He's 72, that's already nearing the end of your average life expectancy and although I'm not all that interested in Russian backdoor politics, people who are are telling me there's going to be quite a bit of succession crisis and the country will have enough on its plate in the foreseeable future.

Even if Ukraine somehow decided to give up and they captured it now, these two problems are already there. Propaganda aside, Russia's completely bleeding there for absolutely minimal progress and while they have resources, I don't think the country will survive as a unified whole in the next 10-20 years.

Which all the more supports my consistent tendency to not appease the bully.

I agree however, that a lot of countries really won't be working together. I'm counting on us and Poland, for obvious reasons, but being the country that experienced the Munich Agreement, we tend to be really sceptical towards the other countries being particularly helpful, especially if it should cost them anything.

Germany has recently closed its nuclear power plants with great fanfare only to realise they don't really have a substitute. Once they realise/decide they really need Russian gas, the old Schröderian way, well...

9d056e9f-0ca2-4086-b2cd-e5b0209c2e0d_text.gif
 
JudasMyGuide said:
Germany has recently closed its nuclear power plants with great fanfare only to realise they don't really have a substitute. Once they realise/decide they really need Russian gas, the old Schröderian way, well...
Click to expand...
They can do that because they are banking on the shared energy market, and by not implementing the price areas the rest, or most, of the EU has been forced to at this point. The shared pricing market essentially means higher prices where there is an abundance of energy to make up for the lack of energy elsewhere. It also means that the prices where there is an abundance of energy skyrockets when there is need somewhere else to keep the prices down, as the power flows pretty much freely throughout the union, with the pricing giving no regards to where it is produced. But we are at a point in time when energy production needs to go up everywhere in the union. The collective electric power production today will not be enough in 10 years.
 
Last edited:
Yax said:
They can do that because they are banking on the shared energy market, and by not implementing the price areas the rest, or most, of the EU has been forced to at this point. The shared pricing market essentially means higher prices where there is an abundance of energy to make up for the lack of energy elsewhere. It also means that the prices where there is an abundance of energy skyrockets when there is need somewhere else to keep the prices down, as the power flows pretty much freely throughout the union, with the pricing giving no regards to where it is produced. But we are at a point in time when energy production needs to go up everywhere in the union. The collective electric power production today will not be enough in 10 years.
Click to expand...

I understand this theory in, well, theory, but it depends on a lot of variables and I don't think it's a wise decision. Definitely not if you want the Europe to be able to stand against Putin at the very least.

True, I'm speaking as an outsider, but decommissioning the relatively "clean" nuclear plants only to pull the coal plants out of the mothballs almost immediately after, right in the middle of Green New Deal sure does have a lot of "I meant to do that" vibes.
 
JudasMyGuide said:
I understand this theory in, well, theory, but it depends on a lot of variables and I don't think it's a wise decision. Definitely not if you want the Europe to be able to stand against Putin at the very least.

True, I'm speaking as an outsider, but decommissioning the relatively "clean" nuclear plants only to pull the coal plants out of the mothballs almost immediately after, right in the middle of Green New Deal sure does have a lot of "I meant to do that" vibes.
Click to expand...
Oh, the EU pricing model is deeply flawed. The spot pricing is set by the last-served customer, which repeatedly sends the pricing into a tailspin + brings up the base-rate for loads of people. It is a deeply unfair system which rewards not investing in your "own" energy infrastructure and punishes ordinary citizens with unpredictable, massive bumps in pricing. On one hand, the system guarantees there will be no power outage, unless something like in Spain happens, but is at the same time a recurring source of financial strain.
 
Yax said:
Oh, the EU pricing model is deeply flawed. The spot pricing is set by the last-served customer, which repeatedly sends the pricing into a tailspin + brings up the base-rate for loads of people. It is a deeply unfair system which rewards not investing in your "own" energy infrastructure and punishes ordinary citizens with unpredictable, massive bumps in pricing. On one hand, the system guarantees there will be no power outage, unless something like in Spain happens, but is at the same time a recurring source of financial strain.
Click to expand...

Also, as you said, it requires the energetic production going up EU-wide to work; in my country for example we have pretty much no other way up than nuclear energy itself, which is kinda ... well...

Since the anti-nuclear tendencies are mostly fuelled by concerns of "safety", especially after Fukushima (yeah, because tsunami is such a serious concern here), it kinda stinks of NIMBY - no, we don't want the icky nuclear energy, let the others take the risks instead, we're clean.

(not to sound like a right-winger, but this tendency to "outsource" responsibility just to have a seemingly clean slate is my ongoing concern with "green policies" as such;
"ah, our energy is green. And if there's not enough, we can always buy from others who don't count"
"ah, our great electric cars are so amazing for the environment ... and allegedly even for the children who mine cobalt for those in the third world"

but I digress)

In the end, I wonder how long it will take until some Realpolitik pragmatist looks at it in the cold, bleak light of morning and suddenly dealing with Russia is okay again. But that's just the cynic within me speaking.
 
Russia has shown that their military capabilities are far from the image they've been projecting for decades. Despite that, they are still a nuclear power. I agree that Russia needs to face stronger repercussions, far more severe sanctions and other measures. Yet, I wouldn't put it past Putin to lunch nukes if he feels he's backed into a corner. He is an egomaniacal madman after all. There have been multiple rumours over the years concerning his health, alleging he suffers from one cancer or another. I could see him going scorched earth once he thinks he has nothing more to lose.

I get the frustation with Europe and the West. There are certain actions I would've preferred to have gone differently. But I'm not willing risking nuclear annihilation; that's why I think caution is more necessary than ever.
 
That kind of stance leads exactly to that outcome, in my opinion—it's the thinking of a man in an Ivory Tower. No offence meant.

A bully will keep pushing for as long as he wants, especially if you keep avoiding a response at all costs. And because of that, you eventually end up backed into a corner. By then, the stakes will already be enormous. Welcome to the nuclear wasteland. It’s far wiser to kill off evil at the very beginning.
 
Nah, the facepalm was because both you and Magnus couldn't go a single post without immediately busting out the ad hominems. At this point I wonder why the both of you even try. You've been repeating the same points over and over again. There's not much to discuss, is there?
 
Hmm, “The Man in an Ivory Tower” isn’t really an ad hominem, is it? To me, it’s more of a label that describes a certain school of thought or philosophical mindset. You tend to prefer delaying* action as long as possible, hoping that bad things will somehow fade away on their own. It's a bit like living in a morally perfect world—one that's somewhat detached from the real chain of cause and effect.

* Although, thinking about it now... I guess we all love to delay certain things. :innocent:

/This post was written as a joke./
/A bad one, maybe./
/My bad./'
 
Instead of engaging with my position (for example the rumours about Putin's health) you cast judgement on me and people who think like me. Magnus outright accused cowardice. Those are ad hominems.

As I've already told you, we are all just people on a forum. None of us are politicians. None of us can change anything. If me and the others are sitting in our "Ivory Towers", then so are you as well. Or are you at the frontlines fighting? ;)

(Edit because this is important: It's always the people who aren't fighting themselves who lust for war and escalations. Advocating for actions that will result in thousands upon thousands, if not millions, of otherwise preventable deaths is no different than the politicians who use their own people as pawns and sacrifice them for their ambitions. That's pure cowardice and a monstrous and deeply moronic. I get that it makes you feel better to vent your frustrations, but it is also important to call this shit out. Maybe it's time to start a diary or a blog, to get this out of your system instead.)

I tried to get back to the topic and to mention things we haven't really discussed before, but it seems our resident snowflakes are only interested in whining, ranting and repeating the same exact post for the hundredth time. Have fun, if it makes you two feel better, I guess? I'm out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top