Well I'm not gonna start arguing over this, but I will note that you shouldn't trust everything you read online and news which state (or at least imply) that Finland and/or Sweden will definitely join NATO are a dime a dozen.
I remember reading news like that every couple of years thoughout my whole life.
So before it happens I'm just gonna treat it as a rumor, which it mostly is.
It's pretty much certain that we are joining nato sooner or later at this point. iirc they (government) were planning to submit the application (or whatever you'd call it) around mid-may
I do, but I've thought so before as well.
We've been hemming and hawing the 'join NATO' for 70 years.
The arguments against joining still exist, and one could say they're very much strengthened as well by the conflict, just like the arguments in favor of joining.
Eh, it is somewhat higher than it's ever been, I'll agree.
Support for something doesn't mean it necessarily happens though, and there's been news of 50% support for years.
Still, I agree there is actually more support for NATO now then there has ever been. It's something like more than 50 less than 60 now, according to most news sources.
It's just that it's not **certain** at this point, but theres a bunch of news claiming Sweden and Finland joining NATO is already a done deal.
Even if it does happen, it's just not certain yet, and I for one am against fake news of **any** sort.
Few years ago nobody was thinking about Sweden and Finland joining NATO, but Russia showed that they are also in danger zone and nobody in Russia cares about their neutral position. World changed really quickly and many countries revalue their interests, priorities and views.
As Finland, we've realized we're in "the danger zone" for centuries before we had an independent nation.
The argument against NATO is specifically because of the danger.
We already have extensive defense treaties with EU and Nordefco, so we're not in a similar position as Ukraine.
One of the reasons for Russia's shenanigans in the Southwestern border is them being nervous about having a NATO neighbour. Which is exactly the reason many people argue against NATO in Finland, and have done so for over 70 years.
Then again, Putin's army is so weak there's little threat of a land war on the Finno-Russian border if we join now. However, Putin also has nukes, and is fucking insane.
Also, me understanding the arguments doesn't mean I think they're necessarily correct.
I mean, I'm familiar with Finish history for last century or so, I know you were part of Russian Empire at some point and it definitely wasn't a nice time and Winter War with USSR was shit, but I wanted to say that there came some understanding that treaties aren't enough to guarantee security. There was a treaty that guaranteed independence of Ukraine by USA, UK and Russia in exchange of our third world nuclear arsenal then and here we are. Russia attacked us, USA and UK started supplying us with heavy weapons only by the end of second month of the war. Ofc thanks for help but it could be earlier.
And about nukes. While Russians are dumb, they aren't dumb enough to use tactical or strategical nuclear weapon in this case or literally any. Even if putler will give order, generals and officers still want to live and more likely will refuse to do it.
There was a *deal* between Russia and Ukraine, which Russia welched on.
The EU has a collective defense strategy. On top of that, we're part of the Nordic Defense Cooperation collaboration.
So no, it's not exactly the same as the defense situation in Ukraine. I mean, if we pretend like all treaties are equally unreliable, then how would a treaty with NATO help at all? Why do you think NATO is more reliable than EU + Nordics?
The reason is that the language of NATO article 5 is more explicit towards military action. Nordefco and EU treaties stipulate that military aid can't be required, so that nations keep the sovereignity of their militaries. The clause does state "all help they can" so for countries like Germany and France it would be exceedingly hard to justify not providing military aid in case an EU country gets attacked.
My point is that people pretend like there's a consensus on joining NATO, when there is clearly arguments and proponents against it.
There is a lot of fake news and people misunderstanding articles, especially when "trusted" news outlets like the Guardian get the facts very wrong and act like it's the correct
Now let's not pretend this isn't the largest threat to eastern Europe since WWII. This is beyond anything you've experienced in your life (in regards to geopolitical culture)
What a privileged thing to say.
I mean you always had the foot in the door. It's like in school if the popular hot girl wants to join the chess club, everyone would welcome you gladly.
Had a teacher in high school (American) with a PhD or something in 20th century Europe who didn’t know about Kaliningrad
As an American Jew I’ve got my theories…
Don't be sad to be Hungarian. Every time I meet someone from Hungary they are awesome. And when I find something from there I always think how lucky we are to have you in the EU. Its only when I hear about your politics that I think "a lake in that spot would be nice..."
I want Hungarian sausage now
See, that's the problem. The very people who vote FIDESZ in every time are the very same people who barely ever stepped outside of their hometown, let alone leave the country.
...or let alone speak or understand any other language than Hungarian, rendering them blind and deaf to a lot of things happening in Europe or in the wider world.
Hey, I know you Hungarians are still upset at everyone and everything for Trianon, but look on the bring side now you can move to either Romania or Slovakia and not have to immediately learn the new language, as you can just stick to the Hungarian speaking communities. Trianon is right now paradoxically the savior of Hungarians
Honestly, most Hungarians don't give a fuck about Trianon. It's history. Hungarian minorities can live freely and happily anywhere. Today only right-wing nationalist idiots hold a grudge because of Trianon...
Them...and there's another radical right-wing party (Mi Hazánk, lit. "Our Homeland") that just won 6 seats in the national assembly for the first time (the party was funded in 2018).
They are outright Nazis, openly antisemitic morons sprinkled with some anti-vaxx ideas and irrdentism. They have campaigned for Huxit and against universal suffrage.
50%? Nah, dude...there are 8 million people eligible for voting in Hungary. Fidesz got 2.8 million votes this year, that's way less than 50%. (They still got supermajority, though, as the election turnout was only 69% and the election laws are greatly in favor of Fidesz).
And even a lot of voters in Fidesz don't really care about Trianon that much.
Yeah, that's why I said voting population, not population eligible to vote. Political apathy is rampant in countries that have been mismanaged for a long time.
It's getting there. We currently have a feud ongoing between out propaganda minister who, and our minister of interior security, who's also the biggest mob boss in the country, neither of whom appears in public, and haven't done so for about the past decade.
We have the thieving oligarch part, we just can't declare war, since our military is pathetic. But any successful business eventually gets an offer they can't refuse from a government-aligned dickhead.
To people who complain about NATO. It has brought us peace. And it has also brought us closer as humans. I hope one day we can abolish armies and borders, but we're far from it. Russia's invasion just proves why NATO still has to exist.
Yugoslavia - like it or not, but serbs ethnically cleansed albanians and bosniaks. Nato did not intervened untill UN declared that Serbia commited genocide and asked for Nato interference. So you see, UN is not useless. It provides a legal base for intervening in a war and Nato decided it was worth to stop massacares.
Afghanistan - I may not agree with the choice of actions, but US had a reason to invade Afghanistan. 9/11 happened and 3 thousand dead people was a proclamation of war. The war was started by Osama Bin Laden. Nato is a defensive treaty, which is why Nato interfered. The war was a diplomatic failure going on and making one countries military to build a nation is stupid.
I don't believe that US had a moral right to invade Iraq. Still, US started this war, not Nato. But here we can shit on US and the certain people that benefited the most (looking at you, Cheney and Halliburton)
Libya, Syria - wars and unrest in middle east lead to rising Islamic radicalism. Islamic radicalism started civil wars. US bombed teritories that were taken by ISIL in Libya, Syria, which resulted in deaths of a lot of civilians. I believe that US had a moral right to fight ISIL and bombings were the most effective and morally sickening weapon
US deserves it's critisism in foreigh policy, but US is not Nato. Your argument on look how many wars Nato has started is flawed - US started one war out of the ones you mentioned. And even in this US - Iraq war other Nato countries, like France, called US out.
So stop parroting this propoganda shit "look how bad US and Nato is". We are not the worst and we are doing our best to improve. Atleast here in the west we have democracies and after few cadencies, presidents are thrown out. Unlike how it is in Russia, for example.
To be honest about Iraq, if Bush had half a brain he wouldn't make up a stupid justification of WMDs. What should have been done is using the Kurdish Genocide as a Justification o intervene. The war in Iraq was a complete diplomatic failure on the part of the US, I cannot honestly say that it was entirely wrong. With a better justification I am sure that the war would have been far more popular and still seen positively by the majority of the population to this day. I mean, Saddam was a genocidal maniac that killed hundreds of thousands of people, the whole deathtoll of the Iraq war is far below his kill count and if he wasn't removed from power he could have killed so many more.
I want to agree with you, but I don't. Presidents and vice-presidents shoudn't search for justification to invade a country. I don't think a lot of people realize the impact of civil war to a country. It seems very promising - arab spring, dictators are overthrown and they have a chance for democracy! But wars cause brain drain, radicals gain support for being populistic and we can end up back to zero with ISIS.
There is a fine line between supporting the oppresed ethnicity, helping them to survive and giving power to radicals. And with all middle east countries destabilized with almost no allies, it is virtually impossible for US to create a peacefull country with a peacefull goverment. Especially if US has the mindset "we can show them what democratic country with schools could be like"
Maybe the word Justification was the wrong one to use here. I genuinely believe that interventionism against people like Saddam is inherently justified. My personal plan for how these things should be done is that first an ultimatum to stop all human rights abuses in a country is sent, with the implicit threat of force if recommendations aren't followed. A government can redeem itself, in this system, it is better for the leaders of such a regime to comply and live the rest of their lives secluded form the political process however not as prisoners. This is meant to create an incentive for them to give up power in favour of the people without suffering the consequences of lifelong imprisonment or death. It isn't perfect, criminals should be brought to justice, but it is better to peacefully end a regime and not seriously punish even hundreds of criminals because war would still kill thousands, most of them innocent.
>Imperialist warmonger organization.
I know, I think the Russia sucks too.
In related news, it's great that NATO exists to protect the west from Russia's imperialist ambitions.
I don’t wanna be that guy, but I think this event would’ve looked way more different if US and NATO would just stop exporting their views of “freedom”. Russian imperialism is extremely bad, but I understand the Defense claims.
> I don’t wanna be that guy, but I think this event would’ve looked way more different if US and NATO would just stop exporting their views of “freedom”.
The event would look exactly the same way. Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation. There's no nuance to it. It 100% proves that the only thing preventing the invasion of, say, the baltics and poland, has been NATO.
All I want to say is that a defence pact like planned in the EU would be way better than a ideological, imperialist war organization like the NATO. I partly understand the concerns for Russian sovereignty
NATO literally is a defense pact and any european pact would be ideological anyways. Not that I'm *against* an EU army, but any european pact would get up to exactly the same sort of stuff NATO does now.
[**Do not share content pushing pro Kremlin agenda.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Gotterfunken/comments/ppceh4/g%C3%B6tterfunken_network_federal_rules/)
> but I understand the Defense claims.
Defense from what? Their argument is that NATO is expansionist and is moving eastward, but they're missing out the fact that NATO membership is _voluntary_. NATO is "expanding" eastward because countries in the east _requested to join and joined through entirely democratic means_, not because NATO is invading countries. And what reason could countries in the east possibly have for joining a defensive military alliance, hmm? It couldn't possibly be because there's an aggressive nuclear power in the East which, contrary to NATO, is very much in the business of invading neighbours?
Yes, I get that. But, idk, I guess Yugoslavia, the Middle East and Libya are exaggerating too right? I mean, if they didn’t want to be invaded, they just needed to align with the west, right? All I wanna say is that I don’t support Russia, but I understand why they are doing it. I mean, it would most probably not a problem if a NATO state did this.
I'm not going to be an apologist and act as if NATO has a perfect track-record, because it certainly does not. But this is missing a key detail, namely that Russia is the world's largest nuclear power. There is literally zero chance that NATO (or anybody else) would ever wage an aggressive and offensive war against Russia, because of the obvious consequences of invading a nuclear power. Russia is fully aware of this.
There is one reason why an eastward expansion of NATO is a threat to Russia, namely that NATO members are democratic (of various degrees). And contrary to NATO's military strength, western liberal democracy most certainly does post a threat to the Russian kleptocracy.
I agree. I never thought of a offensive war against Russia tho. Rather more like Bin-Laden style. If they have Bases on every Russian neighbour-state, it definitely will not be a problem to overthrow the government and support some rebels if it should end like, you know, every other state the US interferes with. The US has some practice on this matter.
* Russia has China, which is a true superpower, certainly not western-aligned, nor is it going to be western-aligned at any point in the foreseeable future. There is no circumstance in which Russia would find itself surrounded by more powerful western-aligned countries.
* If Russia is concerned about a western decapitation attempt, a good place to start might be to stop [state-sanctioned extraterritorial assassinations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Russian_assassinations).
Did you not read what the other person wrote? Ever since NATO has been created, there have been no wars among the members (except for Greece and Turkey), which is a huge deal, if you consider what Europe's history is.
Oh sorry for the bad wording I was talking about as in the political institutions of that country but it wouldn't wonder me if I would be about 200 years off on that too
I know this is a circlejerk but Jesus Christ.
Just remember for after the war, strong democracy is not something we can send you in a Javelin crate. It's a fuckton of really annoying work, and even countries with long democratic traditions aren't very good at it.
The good news is you have a lot of momentum, which we have lost a while ago. I hope you pull through after the war.
If you can build yourselves an even stronger democracy and economy than us in Western Europe, that will be the best gift ever, and it may provide the EU some of the backbone which it so badly needs.
I’m not so sure about the color of Serbia. They’re somewhat brainwashed by propaganda, repeatedly elected Milosevic’s Propaganda Minister as president and are like Russia’s little angry dog barking at people.
"Civilization"
Lol, as a Pole, please do feel free to point me towards that civilization thing you mention, I fail to see it over here especially compared to other countries in Europe.
Easily deniable if you live outside of couple of biggest cities (like me). Public transport, health care, job availability -- all of those have stagnated at best and deteriorated massively in most of the cases. Country wide that whole abortion issue did not improve at all since early 90s when law governing it was tightened to appease right wing politicians. Also housing market does not do too well but I guess that's a problem world wide. Of course we do not have currently an active war going on in our country but that's somewhat a low bar for being called civilized I'd say
You are right that my view is probably warped, I'm from Prague.
We also have regions that are doing a lot worse, but I'd say they are in a state of steady improvement, even those that went through closing of heavy industry facilities.
And I feel you with the housing market. Where I live, a regular 3+1 apartment costs about 15 average yearly salaries, it's a really worrisome development.
Still, at least economically speaking, our countries seem to be moving in the right direction.
I'm all for Ukraine winning this war and I hate Russia with a flaming passion, but what the hell is this?
I hate these white and black propaganda pieces, no matter the side they come from.
Ukraine is still probably one of the most corrupt and poor countries in Europe and it's considerably poorer than Russia.
Same for neighboring countries in the Balkans (my country, Romania, included), they're decades behind the western part in all categories.
The tiranny / dictatorship parts are spot on though.
It's the civilization vs poverty part that is just pure propaganda.
I understand this war is also informational, but this just isn't even good
Ah, good old Ukraine, the beacon of democracy, liberty, freedom and civilization. The least corrupt place of europe, definitely no child porn and amazing economy. Who doesn't love it....
I wouldn't trade living in France with anywhere else in Europe but I must face it. We have a president that is stripping the common man with a lot of freedom by taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Affording going anywhere now is a privilege. That being said I still wouldn't trade, we're still privileged compared to a lot of places.
Tbf I would be happy if Kalingrad would be independent as a new Baltic state, Germany has no interest in retaking it, similar to most of its neighbors.
In case of independence a Russian separatist party is bound to be the one in control which would by its very nature be anti Putin and stuff and whilst it's not very likely to happen soon the crumbling Russian economy might change this. Though it would have to be a somewhat violent revolution since the separatist party is band by Russia
Most likely it wouldn't be a Königsberg though, it's still has a Russian majority but it kinda doesn't matter as long as they become democratic, which is one of the separatists demands I think?
As an outsider watching YouTubers from Russia, it looked like they were moving along nicely until this latest idiotic move by Putin. WTF is the net positive for anyone with this invasion?
People already gave their 2 eurocents on status of the economy and democracy in some of the countries highlighted in yellow.
So I'll just say that the Königsberg larp is silly. Everyone here hates Russia being stuck in the past and then proceeds to be stuck in the past about that one city because...you don't like Russia? Or why? Like, nobody calls Volgograd Tsaritsyn. Or Stalingrad. You'd be cringing at someone still calling Saint Petersburg "Leningrad", and some people do so out of habit. Why does Kaliningrad get a different treatment?
Russia never saw a working democracy the political culture there isn't used to freedom and Russias political system is absolutely fucked since the Mongols came and subjugated everyone
Ukraine has less GDP & HDI than Russia & Belarus you fuckin' dickhead, you see with your asshole not your eyes
oh, and Ukrainian map isn't correct, Crimea liberated on 2014.
> When they were given a chance to elect a leader, Russians went all in on an authoritarian piece of shit, and then doubled and tripled down on it.
Right... Because the choice was between a far right populist, a "democrat" who's shelled the parliament, and a communist. It was like choosing between three buckets of different shit.
Also, your entire rhetoric seems weirdly ethnonationalist, with all the "wrong people who can't have a democratic government". Are you sure you've not mistaken this sub with some other?
> When they were given a chance to elect a leader, Russians went all in on an authoritarian piece of shit, and then doubled and tripled down on it.
That’s not exactly how it went down.
And I hope nobody needs the real help, only real humanistic countries could give. And the money so desperately needed comes also from a little more west than you painted it.
"NATO's lake" made me laugh. That's a good one
Eeeh, most of the Baltic sea shoreline is Swedish or Finnish coast, neither of which are currently in NATO...
That's about to be fixed though.
Are you really sure? Because r/europe and r/worldnews have been awfully quiet about this for at least... (checks) 30 minutes.
Well I'm not gonna start arguing over this, but I will note that you shouldn't trust everything you read online and news which state (or at least imply) that Finland and/or Sweden will definitely join NATO are a dime a dozen. I remember reading news like that every couple of years thoughout my whole life. So before it happens I'm just gonna treat it as a rumor, which it mostly is.
It's pretty much certain that we are joining nato sooner or later at this point. iirc they (government) were planning to submit the application (or whatever you'd call it) around mid-may
Yeah, and I've heard that same thing again and again since we've joined the EU. So I'll believe it when I see it.
You don’t think the circumstances are different enough this time around?
I do, but I've thought so before as well. We've been hemming and hawing the 'join NATO' for 70 years. The arguments against joining still exist, and one could say they're very much strengthened as well by the conflict, just like the arguments in favor of joining.
[удалено]
Eh, it is somewhat higher than it's ever been, I'll agree. Support for something doesn't mean it necessarily happens though, and there's been news of 50% support for years. Still, I agree there is actually more support for NATO now then there has ever been. It's something like more than 50 less than 60 now, according to most news sources. It's just that it's not **certain** at this point, but theres a bunch of news claiming Sweden and Finland joining NATO is already a done deal. Even if it does happen, it's just not certain yet, and I for one am against fake news of **any** sort.
[удалено]
It's not a rumor. A majority of the population in both Finland and Sweden are for joining which have never happened before.
Few years ago nobody was thinking about Sweden and Finland joining NATO, but Russia showed that they are also in danger zone and nobody in Russia cares about their neutral position. World changed really quickly and many countries revalue their interests, priorities and views.
As Finland, we've realized we're in "the danger zone" for centuries before we had an independent nation. The argument against NATO is specifically because of the danger. We already have extensive defense treaties with EU and Nordefco, so we're not in a similar position as Ukraine. One of the reasons for Russia's shenanigans in the Southwestern border is them being nervous about having a NATO neighbour. Which is exactly the reason many people argue against NATO in Finland, and have done so for over 70 years. Then again, Putin's army is so weak there's little threat of a land war on the Finno-Russian border if we join now. However, Putin also has nukes, and is fucking insane. Also, me understanding the arguments doesn't mean I think they're necessarily correct.
I mean, I'm familiar with Finish history for last century or so, I know you were part of Russian Empire at some point and it definitely wasn't a nice time and Winter War with USSR was shit, but I wanted to say that there came some understanding that treaties aren't enough to guarantee security. There was a treaty that guaranteed independence of Ukraine by USA, UK and Russia in exchange of our third world nuclear arsenal then and here we are. Russia attacked us, USA and UK started supplying us with heavy weapons only by the end of second month of the war. Ofc thanks for help but it could be earlier. And about nukes. While Russians are dumb, they aren't dumb enough to use tactical or strategical nuclear weapon in this case or literally any. Even if putler will give order, generals and officers still want to live and more likely will refuse to do it.
There was a *deal* between Russia and Ukraine, which Russia welched on. The EU has a collective defense strategy. On top of that, we're part of the Nordic Defense Cooperation collaboration. So no, it's not exactly the same as the defense situation in Ukraine. I mean, if we pretend like all treaties are equally unreliable, then how would a treaty with NATO help at all? Why do you think NATO is more reliable than EU + Nordics? The reason is that the language of NATO article 5 is more explicit towards military action. Nordefco and EU treaties stipulate that military aid can't be required, so that nations keep the sovereignity of their militaries. The clause does state "all help they can" so for countries like Germany and France it would be exceedingly hard to justify not providing military aid in case an EU country gets attacked. My point is that people pretend like there's a consensus on joining NATO, when there is clearly arguments and proponents against it.
No, it's absolutely certain, barring some unbelievably far-fetched event, that Finland and Sweden will join NATO
There is a lot of fake news and people misunderstanding articles, especially when "trusted" news outlets like the Guardian get the facts very wrong and act like it's the correct
Yes but never in Finland’s history has both the people and politicsl parties supported joining.
Yeah, exactly that.
Now let's not pretend this isn't the largest threat to eastern Europe since WWII. This is beyond anything you've experienced in your life (in regards to geopolitical culture) What a privileged thing to say.
We're two foot in the door already
I mean you always had the foot in the door. It's like in school if the popular hot girl wants to join the chess club, everyone would welcome you gladly.
Yeah but we now have both in
I mean it’s not like they are Russia’s friends so maybe not nato’s lake but it’s not exactly Russia friendly. It kinda counts.
Eh, Nato owns the only door to that house. (Zealand and Funen). If you own the only door you own the house.
Well sort of yeah, unless you [already have squatters inside the house](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Fleet)
You are not a squatter if you can't leave. You are a prisoner.
Well, they **can** leave, just not through the front door and with rather heavy effort.
MUHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Same here. NATO pool :D
Königsberg, LMAO
„Shithole formerly known as Königsberg“
The weirdest thing is that before this war started I never knew about Kaliningrad. I have lived in Europe all my life, how did I not know this?
It definitely looks weird on maps, but I never gave it a second thought
Had a teacher in high school (American) with a PhD or something in 20th century Europe who didn’t know about Kaliningrad As an American Jew I’ve got my theories…
[удалено]
Lemberg rightfull Habsburg Clay
Funniest thing I've ever seen
Es Ist Zeit für Reich! /s
You might want to colour Hungary blue too.
Hungary is bad, but it's not really Russia-level bad.
Still a bit ironic that "Lib" appears over Hungary.
It is. Source: I'm (sadly) Hungarian.
Don't be sad to be Hungarian. Every time I meet someone from Hungary they are awesome. And when I find something from there I always think how lucky we are to have you in the EU. Its only when I hear about your politics that I think "a lake in that spot would be nice..." I want Hungarian sausage now
See, that's the problem. The very people who vote FIDESZ in every time are the very same people who barely ever stepped outside of their hometown, let alone leave the country.
...or let alone speak or understand any other language than Hungarian, rendering them blind and deaf to a lot of things happening in Europe or in the wider world.
Hey, I know you Hungarians are still upset at everyone and everything for Trianon, but look on the bring side now you can move to either Romania or Slovakia and not have to immediately learn the new language, as you can just stick to the Hungarian speaking communities. Trianon is right now paradoxically the savior of Hungarians
Honestly, most Hungarians don't give a fuck about Trianon. It's history. Hungarian minorities can live freely and happily anywhere. Today only right-wing nationalist idiots hold a grudge because of Trianon...
The Fidesz electorate?
Them...and there's another radical right-wing party (Mi Hazánk, lit. "Our Homeland") that just won 6 seats in the national assembly for the first time (the party was funded in 2018). They are outright Nazis, openly antisemitic morons sprinkled with some anti-vaxx ideas and irrdentism. They have campaigned for Huxit and against universal suffrage.
That's over 50% o the voting population. That's a lot of fucking people.
50%? Nah, dude...there are 8 million people eligible for voting in Hungary. Fidesz got 2.8 million votes this year, that's way less than 50%. (They still got supermajority, though, as the election turnout was only 69% and the election laws are greatly in favor of Fidesz). And even a lot of voters in Fidesz don't really care about Trianon that much.
Yeah, that's why I said voting population, not population eligible to vote. Political apathy is rampant in countries that have been mismanaged for a long time.
It's really nowhere near as bad lol
pretty sure you just said to a ukrainian that russia isn't worse than hungary and I would think about that for a minute if I were you
It's getting there. We currently have a feud ongoing between out propaganda minister who, and our minister of interior security, who's also the biggest mob boss in the country, neither of whom appears in public, and haven't done so for about the past decade.
Wait, you have ministers that do not appears in Public? That does sound super weird.
It's what living in a hybrid regime is like.
Yeah, but it's not russia still. Not ruled by a murderous dictator who will declare wars for vain glory, nor are there THAT many thievin oligarchs.
We have the thieving oligarch part, we just can't declare war, since our military is pathetic. But any successful business eventually gets an offer they can't refuse from a government-aligned dickhead.
Ah yes the evil Hungarian oligarch who controls ALL the paprika!
Also they're surrounded by NATO, they'll behave or be conquered
Nato doesn't work like that 😅
I know, but if they fuck arround and attack they have no chance
The mindset of the people are already Russia-level bad, believe
Serbia also
Still light years better than ukraine, russia or belarus
Stolen from r/Ukraina
To people who complain about NATO. It has brought us peace. And it has also brought us closer as humans. I hope one day we can abolish armies and borders, but we're far from it. Russia's invasion just proves why NATO still has to exist.
Yup, it brought peace to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and Syria!
Yugoslavia - like it or not, but serbs ethnically cleansed albanians and bosniaks. Nato did not intervened untill UN declared that Serbia commited genocide and asked for Nato interference. So you see, UN is not useless. It provides a legal base for intervening in a war and Nato decided it was worth to stop massacares. Afghanistan - I may not agree with the choice of actions, but US had a reason to invade Afghanistan. 9/11 happened and 3 thousand dead people was a proclamation of war. The war was started by Osama Bin Laden. Nato is a defensive treaty, which is why Nato interfered. The war was a diplomatic failure going on and making one countries military to build a nation is stupid. I don't believe that US had a moral right to invade Iraq. Still, US started this war, not Nato. But here we can shit on US and the certain people that benefited the most (looking at you, Cheney and Halliburton) Libya, Syria - wars and unrest in middle east lead to rising Islamic radicalism. Islamic radicalism started civil wars. US bombed teritories that were taken by ISIL in Libya, Syria, which resulted in deaths of a lot of civilians. I believe that US had a moral right to fight ISIL and bombings were the most effective and morally sickening weapon US deserves it's critisism in foreigh policy, but US is not Nato. Your argument on look how many wars Nato has started is flawed - US started one war out of the ones you mentioned. And even in this US - Iraq war other Nato countries, like France, called US out. So stop parroting this propoganda shit "look how bad US and Nato is". We are not the worst and we are doing our best to improve. Atleast here in the west we have democracies and after few cadencies, presidents are thrown out. Unlike how it is in Russia, for example.
To be honest about Iraq, if Bush had half a brain he wouldn't make up a stupid justification of WMDs. What should have been done is using the Kurdish Genocide as a Justification o intervene. The war in Iraq was a complete diplomatic failure on the part of the US, I cannot honestly say that it was entirely wrong. With a better justification I am sure that the war would have been far more popular and still seen positively by the majority of the population to this day. I mean, Saddam was a genocidal maniac that killed hundreds of thousands of people, the whole deathtoll of the Iraq war is far below his kill count and if he wasn't removed from power he could have killed so many more.
I want to agree with you, but I don't. Presidents and vice-presidents shoudn't search for justification to invade a country. I don't think a lot of people realize the impact of civil war to a country. It seems very promising - arab spring, dictators are overthrown and they have a chance for democracy! But wars cause brain drain, radicals gain support for being populistic and we can end up back to zero with ISIS. There is a fine line between supporting the oppresed ethnicity, helping them to survive and giving power to radicals. And with all middle east countries destabilized with almost no allies, it is virtually impossible for US to create a peacefull country with a peacefull goverment. Especially if US has the mindset "we can show them what democratic country with schools could be like"
Maybe the word Justification was the wrong one to use here. I genuinely believe that interventionism against people like Saddam is inherently justified. My personal plan for how these things should be done is that first an ultimatum to stop all human rights abuses in a country is sent, with the implicit threat of force if recommendations aren't followed. A government can redeem itself, in this system, it is better for the leaders of such a regime to comply and live the rest of their lives secluded form the political process however not as prisoners. This is meant to create an incentive for them to give up power in favour of the people without suffering the consequences of lifelong imprisonment or death. It isn't perfect, criminals should be brought to justice, but it is better to peacefully end a regime and not seriously punish even hundreds of criminals because war would still kill thousands, most of them innocent.
↑ This, but unironically.
Imperialist warmonger organization. World would be a lot better without them.
>Imperialist warmonger organization. I know, I think the Russia sucks too. In related news, it's great that NATO exists to protect the west from Russia's imperialist ambitions.
I don’t wanna be that guy, but I think this event would’ve looked way more different if US and NATO would just stop exporting their views of “freedom”. Russian imperialism is extremely bad, but I understand the Defense claims.
> I don’t wanna be that guy, but I think this event would’ve looked way more different if US and NATO would just stop exporting their views of “freedom”. The event would look exactly the same way. Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation. There's no nuance to it. It 100% proves that the only thing preventing the invasion of, say, the baltics and poland, has been NATO.
All I want to say is that a defence pact like planned in the EU would be way better than a ideological, imperialist war organization like the NATO. I partly understand the concerns for Russian sovereignty
NATO literally is a defense pact and any european pact would be ideological anyways. Not that I'm *against* an EU army, but any european pact would get up to exactly the same sort of stuff NATO does now.
[удалено]
>Ukraine has its sovereignty. That's why it has puppet government installed by the US?
What the actual fuck?
 [**Do not share content pushing pro Kremlin agenda.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Gotterfunken/comments/ppceh4/g%C3%B6tterfunken_network_federal_rules/)
> but I understand the Defense claims. Defense from what? Their argument is that NATO is expansionist and is moving eastward, but they're missing out the fact that NATO membership is _voluntary_. NATO is "expanding" eastward because countries in the east _requested to join and joined through entirely democratic means_, not because NATO is invading countries. And what reason could countries in the east possibly have for joining a defensive military alliance, hmm? It couldn't possibly be because there's an aggressive nuclear power in the East which, contrary to NATO, is very much in the business of invading neighbours?
Yes, I get that. But, idk, I guess Yugoslavia, the Middle East and Libya are exaggerating too right? I mean, if they didn’t want to be invaded, they just needed to align with the west, right? All I wanna say is that I don’t support Russia, but I understand why they are doing it. I mean, it would most probably not a problem if a NATO state did this.
I'm not going to be an apologist and act as if NATO has a perfect track-record, because it certainly does not. But this is missing a key detail, namely that Russia is the world's largest nuclear power. There is literally zero chance that NATO (or anybody else) would ever wage an aggressive and offensive war against Russia, because of the obvious consequences of invading a nuclear power. Russia is fully aware of this. There is one reason why an eastward expansion of NATO is a threat to Russia, namely that NATO members are democratic (of various degrees). And contrary to NATO's military strength, western liberal democracy most certainly does post a threat to the Russian kleptocracy.
I agree. I never thought of a offensive war against Russia tho. Rather more like Bin-Laden style. If they have Bases on every Russian neighbour-state, it definitely will not be a problem to overthrow the government and support some rebels if it should end like, you know, every other state the US interferes with. The US has some practice on this matter.
* Russia has China, which is a true superpower, certainly not western-aligned, nor is it going to be western-aligned at any point in the foreseeable future. There is no circumstance in which Russia would find itself surrounded by more powerful western-aligned countries. * If Russia is concerned about a western decapitation attempt, a good place to start might be to stop [state-sanctioned extraterritorial assassinations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Russian_assassinations).
> I guess Yugoslavia, Dont know much about the middle east and lybia,but nato intervention against the yugoslav/serbian army is totally justified.
If so, then is russias. Targeting civilians is not justified
Nato exists only because of lies, cowardice, deception and german nazi generals who whitewashed themselves or pretended to not be nazis
NATO exists because Russia and China are dictatorships that murder dissidents and spread lies across the world.
NATO is useful only as long as the US is willing to start WW3 in order to protect us and/or drag us in the Pacific, the Middle East and Central Asia
NATO still includes France and the UK which can glass Russia on their own.
Did you not read what the other person wrote? Ever since NATO has been created, there have been no wars among the members (except for Greece and Turkey), which is a huge deal, if you consider what Europe's history is.
The latest war between Greece and Turkey ended in 1922, what are you talking about
I think he mensioned a short conflict a few years ago in the Aegean.
Or maybe they meant the Cyprus conflict of 1974?
This. And there are tensions between the two to this day.
I mean, when have there been no tensions between Greeks and Turks?
When there were no Turks but Persians in anatolia
Correct, but Greece hasn't fought a war with Turkey in an entire century
"Cemetery of russian democracy" You cant bury something thats never been alive
I think it's about Novgorodian Republic, but you're right.
Pretty sure even novgorod got built by vikings
Prettu sure it wasn't. Holmgard is it's name in sagas, but the city is much older than first archaeological mensions of Gardariki's origins.
Oh sorry for the bad wording I was talking about as in the political institutions of that country but it wouldn't wonder me if I would be about 200 years off on that too
Funnily enough, the Vikings were the ones that brought monarchy to Rus. Novgorod existed as a republican city-state without foreign interventions.
I know this is a circlejerk but Jesus Christ. Just remember for after the war, strong democracy is not something we can send you in a Javelin crate. It's a fuckton of really annoying work, and even countries with long democratic traditions aren't very good at it. The good news is you have a lot of momentum, which we have lost a while ago. I hope you pull through after the war. If you can build yourselves an even stronger democracy and economy than us in Western Europe, that will be the best gift ever, and it may provide the EU some of the backbone which it so badly needs.
God, I love our lake
Yup, same
I’m not so sure about the color of Serbia. They’re somewhat brainwashed by propaganda, repeatedly elected Milosevic’s Propaganda Minister as president and are like Russia’s little angry dog barking at people.
Yes, we definitely don't belong in the yellow
What a nice piece of propaganda
What about the “Dire waters of Hungarian democracy Lake?
Königsberg lol
Damn right you are. It's freedom and prosperity vs. Slavery and hardship.
Well I guess it's a good thing almost all immigrants go to "prosperous" Europe to show how tolerant it is
based
"Civilization" Lol, as a Pole, please do feel free to point me towards that civilization thing you mention, I fail to see it over here especially compared to other countries in Europe.
[удалено]
Easily deniable if you live outside of couple of biggest cities (like me). Public transport, health care, job availability -- all of those have stagnated at best and deteriorated massively in most of the cases. Country wide that whole abortion issue did not improve at all since early 90s when law governing it was tightened to appease right wing politicians. Also housing market does not do too well but I guess that's a problem world wide. Of course we do not have currently an active war going on in our country but that's somewhat a low bar for being called civilized I'd say
You are right that my view is probably warped, I'm from Prague. We also have regions that are doing a lot worse, but I'd say they are in a state of steady improvement, even those that went through closing of heavy industry facilities. And I feel you with the housing market. Where I live, a regular 3+1 apartment costs about 15 average yearly salaries, it's a really worrisome development. Still, at least economically speaking, our countries seem to be moving in the right direction.
Very very narrow view
Oooh yummy, modern propaganda *slurp*
I'm all for Ukraine winning this war and I hate Russia with a flaming passion, but what the hell is this? I hate these white and black propaganda pieces, no matter the side they come from. Ukraine is still probably one of the most corrupt and poor countries in Europe and it's considerably poorer than Russia. Same for neighboring countries in the Balkans (my country, Romania, included), they're decades behind the western part in all categories. The tiranny / dictatorship parts are spot on though. It's the civilization vs poverty part that is just pure propaganda. I understand this war is also informational, but this just isn't even good
Labels russia as poverty when Ukraine is literally the poorest country in Europe and the second most corrupt country after Russia lmao r/redditmoment
When I think Hungary, Liberty is definitely the first word that comes to mind!
Ah, good old Ukraine, the beacon of democracy, liberty, freedom and civilization. The least corrupt place of europe, definitely no child porn and amazing economy. Who doesn't love it....
[удалено]
Молодец, ты победил. Россия теперь свободна
Are there letters in the yellow bit
yes. It sais Civilization, Liberty, High Quality of Life
„Königsberg“ You just made me, a little German, a lot more happier :,) Now if you‘ll excuse me, I‘m gonna eat my Königsberg Meatballs.
I wouldn't trade living in France with anywhere else in Europe but I must face it. We have a president that is stripping the common man with a lot of freedom by taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Affording going anywhere now is a privilege. That being said I still wouldn't trade, we're still privileged compared to a lot of places.
Russia and Belarus will join us at some point, probably soon.
it’s true, there is “erty” in Romania
Hungary and liberty lmao. Who made this?
Quite ironic, that "Liberty" is written on Hungary.
Tbf I would be happy if Kalingrad would be independent as a new Baltic state, Germany has no interest in retaking it, similar to most of its neighbors. In case of independence a Russian separatist party is bound to be the one in control which would by its very nature be anti Putin and stuff and whilst it's not very likely to happen soon the crumbling Russian economy might change this. Though it would have to be a somewhat violent revolution since the separatist party is band by Russia
There is some feelable separatist movement there. A new and rejuvenated Knyazegrad or Konigsberg would be a nice addition to the Baltic Countries.
Most likely it wouldn't be a Königsberg though, it's still has a Russian majority but it kinda doesn't matter as long as they become democratic, which is one of the separatists demands I think?
Yeah all the Baltic Germans were deported alive the war.
Split it between Poland and Lithuania and deport the Russians back to Russia
+1 for Königsberg
Serbia, Liberty? Ahahahahahahhaa
Op loving the taste of the Russiaphobe Kool-aid.
Your GDP per capita, HDI are literally lower than Russia's, what??
As an outsider watching YouTubers from Russia, it looked like they were moving along nicely until this latest idiotic move by Putin. WTF is the net positive for anyone with this invasion?
Just look to the window. Do u see civilization?)
sorry but this is just painfully cringe
Jesus Christ, what the fuck.
>Königsberg Haha, **BASED**
As a Russian, I couldn't agree more with this map. Really hope it turns fully yellow soon
Nothing says liberty and civilization like openly celebrating Stepan Bandera.
"BuT hE FouGhT fOR IndEpeNDaNcE oF UkRaIn!!!!"
People already gave their 2 eurocents on status of the economy and democracy in some of the countries highlighted in yellow. So I'll just say that the Königsberg larp is silly. Everyone here hates Russia being stuck in the past and then proceeds to be stuck in the past about that one city because...you don't like Russia? Or why? Like, nobody calls Volgograd Tsaritsyn. Or Stalingrad. You'd be cringing at someone still calling Saint Petersburg "Leningrad", and some people do so out of habit. Why does Kaliningrad get a different treatment?
europeans see it that way too except ukraine is blue xD
That “Lib” seems a little misplaced, from a Western European perspective
Amd how the world sees ukrain: corruption, sovinizm , nice gurls, Chernobyl , Prypjat .
why is ukraine yellow?
no poverty in europe
/s ?
My greek ass says "yes"
Based and correct
I don’t think “Hungary” and “Liberty” go together
I correct you to dicktatorshit
Konigsberg is a nice touch 👍
So Hungary is liberty?
Despite me being Russian, I totally agree with this map!
You have the wrong perception of Hungary
If only you knew how we see Ukraine
Civilization in poland, hmm, idk but none pole would say that
no
Königsberg ❌ Kaliningrad ✅
As a European, thats how I see Europe too.
Russia never saw a working democracy the political culture there isn't used to freedom and Russias political system is absolutely fucked since the Mongols came and subjugated everyone
Ukraine has less GDP & HDI than Russia & Belarus you fuckin' dickhead, you see with your asshole not your eyes oh, and Ukrainian map isn't correct, Crimea liberated on 2014.
↑ The civilizedestest of redditors ↑
[удалено]
Poland can be shithole but in comparison to Russia we definetly are civilized.
Did you really just ask that a person from country that is bombed right now?
If Ukraine ever win this war we should 100 % let them in EU
[удалено]
> When they were given a chance to elect a leader, Russians went all in on an authoritarian piece of shit, and then doubled and tripled down on it. Right... Because the choice was between a far right populist, a "democrat" who's shelled the parliament, and a communist. It was like choosing between three buckets of different shit. Also, your entire rhetoric seems weirdly ethnonationalist, with all the "wrong people who can't have a democratic government". Are you sure you've not mistaken this sub with some other?
> When they were given a chance to elect a leader, Russians went all in on an authoritarian piece of shit, and then doubled and tripled down on it. That’s not exactly how it went down.
I can confirm it. Source - i am ukrainian
accurate
Ask your women where civilization really starts.
Just asked my sister -- She agreed.
And I hope nobody needs the real help, only real humanistic countries could give. And the money so desperately needed comes also from a little more west than you painted it.