484
Europe will lose all credibility if Russia wins in Ukraine, warns French president Macron
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
484 points (97.5% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, and they would use them if they had foreign armies pushing into their territory.
But no efforts were made to really democratise and modernise Russia - they let oligarchs rise up from criminal gangs, etc., it'd have been better to have a more controlled process like Glasnost.
I think that here the problem is not to invade Russia, but that Russia need to left Ukraine.
Yeah because Russia was not capitulated. They were a disfunctional, but sovereign country. You cannot dictate anything on them. You can lead by example or make suggestions, but ultimately it's the will of the people that matters. In that regard the situation is rather similar to Germany post WW1. A people not yet ready for democracy and no one there to force them to. In Germany's case it took the entire to be bombed to the ground, millions dead and being occupied by 4 not so emphatic countries.
I wouldn't compare interwar Germany and post-USSR Russia this way. On the one hand, post-WWI Germany absolutely had dictates placed on them that were big enough and were meant to cripple the country. On the other hand, WWI wasn't about democracy, but that the autocrats ruling Germany wanted colonial empires, like the autocrats ruling the Entente had.
Yes, electing Hitler was not the correct path, but I guess it's hard to see any path at all when English tourists laugh at the cheap prices at the café you work at while you wouldn't be able to afford even one of them from your wages.
Russia did not turn out better, since there was no real regime change after the end of the USSR. Putin was in the KGB. I'm sure most people who are in power now were in the elite in the USSR as well.
It's not "the people not yet ready for democracy", it's that the instruments of power had the same people manning them. If it was just the people, a lot of the US seems "not yet ready for democracy" with being hell-bent on electing a dictator.
Actually Putin became president about ten years after the USSR collapsed, so there may have been a window of opportunity
Yeltsin was a highly placed party member as well before becoming president. You could say he was liberal, but so was Orbán during his first term.
Good point. I'm not sure if the first president could've been not a highly placed party member, though, that'd be more like a revolution
That's my point exactly. No revolution ever happened, the same power structures that kept the USSR working the way it did keep Russia in the same path.
I think there were some efforts, some may even worked. There were also efforts from the inside, but in the end those efforts were not enough, it seems