That being said I don't think Trump would care about that. — Mr Bee

I think this is probably coming from his VP.

Poland seems to be the country best positioned to lead Europe against Russian imperialism.

GB put itself out of contention with Brexit. France and Germany are too politically compromised.

Or it might become reasonable to start making those items at home instead of importing them. — frank

I suppose, if the tariffs were high enough, then the imports would be canceled, which would be bad for the exporter (compare with sanctions).
The importers aren't likely to swallow the tariffs, they increase the cost of goods for the population.
So, instead of the tariff stuff, how about pressuring capitalists to increasingly bring production/manufacturing home (and perhaps take a wage cut)?
Well, that might decrease support among the capitalists, less $s for campaigning, fewer votes, ... (worse self-image for The Clown).
Capitalism isn't patriotism, it's about maximizing profits, cheaper labor (lower wages) + less environmental regulations + less health and safety protection + ...

Yep, what I don't get is why we don't let them join the Eurozone. They deserve to have the euro as the primary currency. What can you do with Polish złoty? Nothing. As well as the Czech Republic, they still have their own currency (korunas).

So, the EU should give these countries the opportunity of joining the Euro-zone finally.

On the other hand, I only hope that France and Germany will be more fond and considerate of Mediterranean countries. That would be neat.

Well he just said he plans to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, so he probably has plans for the EU too. Personally I'd say call his bluff. He doesn't seem to know what tariffs will do and neither do his voters so they'll likely be in for a reality check if he goes through with it. Given how sensitive he is to political and market pressure he's honestly more likely to blink than anyone else if it gets really bad. — Mr Bee

Because, as you said, he and his voters don't know what tariffs and trade wars do, we are going to see a lot of damage. It's quite inevitable. Just look at the reasons given to the 25% tariffs.

Nothing will change the minds of Trump voters about this. It's like trying to talk in 2016 to Britons that Brexit won't work, that it will create huge problems for the economy, no real benefits will counter it's bad effects and btw the migration to the UK will continue, the EU migrants will just be replace with Third World migrants.

You think any Brexit supporter would have believed you? Of course not!

And the same is here true. Trump won't change. He will choose into his cabinet sycophants and totally obedient yes-men, whoever they are. There won't be any "grown ups" in this administration towing a normal US policy, it really will be at the whims of Trump. Congress simply will not put up with the most bizarre ideas, hence executive orders and foreign policy will be the

Europe has to understand the Trump is a bully for whom appeasement is weakness. He has already made up his mind of Europe and Europeans. Only a Victor Orban will do, everybody else are simply annoying Europeans that one has to be tough with... in the end they will bend over backwards and do flips as the US wants.

The consisent approach to this for Europe is to set it's own goals and stay there. Don't react to Trump's bickering. If Trump makes outrageous demands, just say no and wait for four years. Trying to negotiate as one would with a normal person doesn't work. If Europe gives in, then Trump will just ask for more. Best thing is market European objectives as huge concessions that we have made to the US thanks to Trump. That's enough for Trump.

Poland seems to be the country best positioned to lead Europe against Russian imperialism.

GB put itself out of contention with Brexit. France and Germany are too politically compromised. — Banno

This is a rational choice, yet knowing the EU, no country alone can be a real leader... except the US if it would see alliances important (which it won't see in two months). Poland had the Visegrád Group, which was established by Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia (still), Lech Walesa of Poland and the prime minister of Hungary Antall in Visegrad, Hungary. Well, now unfortunately that won't work as Hungary is now pro-Russian (and quite hostile towards Ukraine).

Poland is seen as a possibility for leadership, as here (the American) Foreing Policy writes in the summer of this year:

A third model of leadership is emerging in Poland, where a new government has combined strong rhetoric with vast resources. Five years ago, then-European Council President Donald Tusk linked the future of Ukraine with the future of Europe in a speech at the Ukrainian Rada. Since becoming Polish prime minister last year, he has been very clear about Europe needing to adopt a prewar posture as it prepares for further attempts by the Kremlin to reestablish its former empire. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has been similarly clear in arguing for Europe’s long-term rearmament. He also warned Russia that it “is not we, the West, who should fear a clash with Putin, but the other way around.”

But it will take time still when Poland will be strong, even if their armament program is huge.

During the 1930's the countries between Germany and Soviet Union tried to do some defense cooperation, but that amounted to very little. In the Nordic countries when this came up, Finland saw the existential threat to be the Soviet Union, Denmark to be Germany and Sweden and Norway didn't think that anybody was threatening them.

I think the best way would be simply to form a "group" from NATO countries that would be willing to take seriously the assistance to Ukraine, perhaps UK-Poland leading with the Baltic and Nordic States. Now as all Nordic countries are in NATO, this would be totally possible. I would assume that the UK would like to be taken seriously as it has a difficulty having a new relationship with the EU. It's always difficult to start a relationship when your marked as the other one's "ex". Yet the UK is in NATO and when it's only in NATO, it will want to be an active member.

And notice that Trump won't naturally take the lead in NATO. The old orange man will just repeat his line that NATO members aren't doing their share and that time has moved past the organization and thus doesn't want to do anything with it. Anyway, he will spend his all his time bullying and quarreling about his tariffs that he so dearly loves.

This is a little discussion moderated by the Brookings Institution about EU defense:



It's a long discussion about nothing. I think the EU will pull itself together when and if it needs to. Since Russia is relatively gutted and under the thumb of Xi, I don't think it presents much of a threat right now. As time goes by, I would guess that the EU will work on ties with China and look in their direction for a diplomatic base. Maybe play China and the US off each other.

It's a long discussion about nothing. I think the EU will pull itself together when and if it needs to. Since Russia is relatively gutted and under the thumb of Xi, I don't think it presents much of a threat right now. — frank

I'd disagree with that. Putin isn't under the thumb of Xi. Just look at how many times the Russians have disappointed Xi with their wars.

First of all, when Putin says that he's at war with NATO, you really shouldn't underestimate this. Iran hasn't declared being at war with the US, even if the US is the Great Satan. Hamas hasn't declared being at war with the US. But Putin has. This won't end in Ukraine.

Usually Eastern Europeans have clarity on the Russian intensions and objectives. One clear and thoughtful document is from Warsaw based think tank Center for Eastern Studies (OSW), and it is worth listening to.



It shows what the West is clearly lacking. Determination to counter Putin and his reconquista.

I'd disagree with that. Putin isn't under the thumb of Xi. Just look at how many times the Russians have disappointed Xi with their wars. — ssu

Xi publicly chided him for talking about nuclear engagement. I took that to be a sign that Xi is in charge. No?

First of all, when Putin says that he's at war with NATO, you really shouldn't underestimate this. — ssu

Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what he's thinking until he actually puts troops on the border. He lies all the time. And at this point he's using North Korean troops. Is he really at a point where he could unilaterally declare war on any European state?

Xi publicly chided him for talking about nuclear engagement. I took that to be a sign that Xi is in charge. No? — frank

What else would someone say? And it's not like China is putting sanctions or limits on Russia because statements like that. China isn't going to go all North Korea, naturally, as it still views that it has to have ties with Europe. It's support of Russia has already alienated European countries.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what he's thinking until he actually puts troops on the border. He lies all the time. And at this point he's using North Korean troops. Is he really at a point where he could unilaterally declare war on any European state? — frank

Nope and It doesn't happen like that.

The objective is to simply weaken the US and European ties, NATO and the EU. You see, Russia gains it's objectives is NATO collapses. Then it has military superiority against European states. Do not think that this game is played only by actual conflict with Russia tanks rolling to the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. What it's aims are for example for my country, Finland, have been said quite clearly: Finland should be as "Finlandized" as it was let's say in the 1970's with Russians having a dominant say in the internal politics of Finland. And it of course "understanding" Russian foreign policy.

The objective is to simply weaken the US and European ties, — ssu

He doesn't need to put any effort into that.

He doesn't need to put any effort into that. — frank

Trump will do that for him? :chin:

Actually, the Kremlin surely hopes this happens. An intense trade war might do the trick.

Or it might not. Let's remember what was written about Trump's trade wars in the first Trump administration:

(Brookings, 2020) As a candidate in 2016, Donald Trump built his argument for the presidency around his claimed acumen as a dealmaker. As the 2020 election draws nearer, President Trump and his surrogates are doubling down on that assertion, including by calling attention to what he has deemed “the biggest deal ever seen”: the “phase one” trade deal with China. The agreement reportedly includes a Chinese commitment to purchase an additional $200 billion in American goods above 2017 levels by the end of 2021.

Six months after the deal was inked, the costs and benefits of this agreement are coming into clearer focus. Despite Trump’s claim that “trade wars are good, and easy to win,” the ultimate results of the phase one trade deal between China and the United States — and the trade war that preceded it — have significantly hurt the American economy without solving the underlying economic concerns that the trade war was meant to resolve. The effects of the trade war go beyond economics, though. Trump’s prioritization on the trade deal and de-prioritization of all other dimensions of the relationship produced a more permissive environment for China to advance its interests abroad and oppress its own people at home, secure in the knowledge that American responses would be muted by a president who was reluctant to risk losing the deal.

More pain than gain: How the US-China trade war hurt America

@ssu All that talk about the EU in the Trump thread should be here. So I called Trump's victory 3 years ago here and worried about the implications and they turn out to be even worse than I expected. I expected Ukraine under the bus, didn't think Musk and therefore misinformation both internally in the USA but now also in the EU to be such a problem.

Really, one of the first things we ought to do, isn't to focus on the physical wars but the information war. We need to gut algorithms and AI systems in search engines and anything providing info and that's best done by a blanket ban on using personal data in those systems. If we don't, we will have a disintregrating EU with fascist like AfD and whatnot cheering along the way - right up to when things get a lot worse and there are no more allies because everybody is doing what's best only for themselves.

why do you think a ban on using personal data would stop the flow of disinformation?

Follow the money. Why are several companies multi-million dollars worth based on the premisse of utilising personal data to disseminate information and advertisements?

The driving force behind the spread of disinformation isn’t human psychology; it’s the way platforms use personal data to manipulate what people see.

Every click, like, share, and comment is tracked, analyzed, and used to create detailed profiles of users. These profiles allow platforms to predict what kind of content will keep someone engaged the longest. Misinformation benefits from this system because it is often more emotionally charged than factual news. Fear, outrage, and confirmation bias make people more likely to engage, and engagement is exactly what the algorithms are designed to maximize. Instead of prioritizing accuracy, platforms prioritize content that will provoke a reaction.

Because content is personalized, two people searching for the same topic might see completely different results. A person prone to conspiracy theories will be shown links that reinforce those beliefs, while someone with different browsing habits might receive more neutral or factual sources. The same mechanism applies to advertisements, political messages and even the news articles people see in their feeds. This is how misinformation becomes a self-reinforcing cycle; once a person starts engaging with misleading content, they are shown more of it, pushing them deeper into their own reality.

Without access to personal data, this system would break down. If platforms couldn’t track users’ interests and behaviors, they wouldn’t be able to microtarget them with specific narratives. Misinformation would still exist, but it wouldn’t spread as quickly or as precisely. People would be exposed to a broader range of content rather than being fed a curated stream that aligns with their biases. Filter bubbles would weaken, and the ability to manipulate public opinion through personalized propaganda would diminish.

A ban on personalized content wouldn’t eliminate misinformation entirely. People would still spread falsehoods, and some would actively seek out misleading information. But it would remove the most powerful tool that allows disinformation to be targeted, optimized, and amplified at an industrial scale.

A ban on personalized content wouldn’t eliminate misinformation entirely. People would still spread falsehoods, and some would actively seek out misleading information. But it would remove the most powerful tool that allows disinformation to be targeted, optimized, and amplified at an industrial scale. — Benkei

I agree with that.

I think you are underestimating the role of our own governments in this.

The reason 'disinformation' has become a problem now, is because the (near-)monopoly held by governments and large coorporations on news distribution has been broken up by social media and the alternative news platforms they accommodate. In many ways, this flight towards alternate media can be explained exactly because governments failed to be reliable information brokers.

At the end of the day, the 'information war' only has losers. Both sides are dealing in propaganda, framing, mass manipulation, etc., which results in constituencies that are delusional, detached from reality, borderline brainwashed.

That is clearly not a sustainable situation, whoever 'wins' the information war.

Only cracking down on the social media side of things will just give the establishment free reign on the information landscape again.

Key here is the acknowledgement that it's not just 'the other side' who is guilty of engaging in blatant use of propaganda. It's not just the Russians and the Chinese. It's not just the Trumpsters. It's almost everybody.

As such, I think the primary 'cure' for this is for people to educate themselves on how they're being manipulated. If anything, all of this open friction is slowly waking people up to how the rotten machinery works.

Really, one of the first things we ought to do, isn't to focus on the physical wars but the information war. — Benkei

Do not forget the hybrid war that is going around. That is far more serious than the information war. We are already having hybrid attacks here quite constantly. And where do you put the fact that the German navy has come out and said that it's naval vessels have been sabotaged:

(The Maritime Executive) The German Navy has confirmed that unnamed saboteurs have attempted to damage more than one of its warships, and media reports from Germany suggest that at least two vessels have been affected.

In 2024, a German Navy minehunter was damaged by unknown personnel while in shipyard in Rostock. Several cable harnesses were severed, and an investigation is under way into a suspected sabotage attack, according to Spiegel. The Rostock prosecutor's office has confirmed that it is investigating the case.

Late last year, an unknown saboteur dumped dozens of kilos of metal filings into the oil sumps of the main engines aboard the brand new corvette Emden, according to multiple German media outlets. The contamination was detected and cleaned out, but if it had not been spotted, it would have quickly destroyed the engines.

Last week, German Navy Vice Adm. Jan Christian Kaack told the press that "more than one unit" had been sabotaged, without going into specifics. Troublingly, he added that German naval bases have reported a pattern of attempted security perimeter breaches, both from the shoreside and from the waterside. He added that uniformed German Navy personnel have been approached in public while en route from base to their homes.

"The growing threat from Russia is more urgent at the beginning of 2025 than it was two years ago," Kaack told reporters, without specifying whether the suspected security threats within Germany were Russian.

The suspected attacks are just part of a broader pattern of sabotage targeting Europe's security forces and its infrastructure. In early 2024, three German-Russian dual nationals were arrested on suspicion of planning an attack on the U.S. military base at Grafenwohr, a training facility for Ukrainian servicemembers. The main suspect, identified as Dieter S., stands accused of plotting an extensive series of arson and explosive attacks within Germany, with targets including rail lines and a manufacturing plant.

(See here)

This will only increase now. It is telling if the news like above won't be picked up by mainstream news. And when it comes to information warfare, we have to remember that the information war has effect when the topic is actually something that the people would feel to be changed even without the topic. One of the things the populists and especially the Trump administration will try to do is portray Europe as being stuck in pre-2016 thinking. For example the migration issue. Never will they admit that actually that European countries have changed their policies. Greece doesn't allow refugees coming over Turkey and we even have closed our border totally with Russia. Our prime minister admitted that yes, it is problematic for our laws and international agreements, but it has to be done because of security. And were we reprimanded by the EU? Of course not. But JD Vance can scold Europe for not handling the migration crisis, naturally. As if the populists would be the only one's taking this seriously.

I think that we as Europeans on this forum would really need quite many new threads because yes, it has been worse than even you anticipated. Like should the EU have it's own nuclear deterrent? Quo vadis NATO?

The reason 'disinformation' has become a problem now, is because the (near-)monopoly held by governments and large coorporations on news distribution has been broken up by social media and the alternative news platforms they accommodate. In many ways, this flight towards alternate media can be explained exactly because governments failed to be reliable information brokers. — Tzeentch

Governments are democratically elected and have all sorts of checks and balances and information access rights for civilians. The idea European governments are largely unreliable or untrustworthy is ridiculous. There are of course all sorts of issues with political parties that will blame other parties (or foreigners) for policies they themselves enacted or at the very least enabled for political gain. Obviously, government does not have a role in policing whatever bullshit political parties are peddling. If people were actually politically engaged and historically aware, which they generally are not, we wouldn't be sliding into the cesspool ahead of us.

And whatever issues people had or have with mainstream media is no different from the monopoly obtained by social media corporations. If this is a problem, your problem is with corporate capitalism - as it should be. Nevertheless, the suggestion that social media and "alternative news platforms" are qualitative alternatives for more traditional media is weird, considering basic journalistic standards are simply not implemented at most of them. There cannot be freedom of speech if we only talk about lies.

Only cracking down on the social media side of things will just give the establishment free reign on the information landscape again. — Tzeentch

This is factually entirely untrue. Well before the advent of social media there were a lot of new independent news websites that still approached journalism in a traditional way. For instance, Salon, Slate, the Drudge Report, Democracy Now!, AlterNet, Truthout, Raw Story, EUobserver, EurActiv, The Local, Meduza OpenDemocracy and Indymedia, etc.

Also the access to traditional media in other countries became much easier. All of them well before the rise of social media.

Key here is the acknowledgement that it's not just 'the other side' who is guilty of engaging in blatant use of propaganda. It's not just the Russians and the Chinese. It's not just the Trumpsters. It's almost everybody. — Tzeentch

That's a paranoid outlook on the state of things. When you receive a letter from the government about your taxes, it's not propaganda, it's communication. Governments interact in all sorts of ways and most of it is still beneficial even if there's always a lot of room for improvement.

It's amazing such news isn't picked up more broadly. I hadn't heard about those sabotage attempts.

I believe that before building something important as a stronger European Union, we should update the concept.

First of all, the EU should keep pushing forward to get Georgia's membership. We can't let them behind. It is important to lend a hand to those countries. Otherwise, they would think the EU is not relevant enough for improving human rights.

On the other hand, I would ask Norway to join the EU. It is not understandable that this country had a NATO secretary, but their citizens have no voice in European chambers. How can we allow that? Furthermore, they are very clever at managing natural resources, as they usually do with oil in their sea.

United Kingdom: Since Brexit was a terrible mistake, I think our representatives should start to get them in again or something similar. We can't have a WWI and WWII winner out of the EU. This was established exactly to prevent wars amongst Europeans. Also, it is reckless the high costs for not being in the common market. Alas, we had the worst politicians possible.

Ukraine should not be a member of the EU.

I guess we won't be agreeing on much then.

One thing I would point out though, is that of course independent media has existed for a while, but the problem is they are denied large platforms - those are jealously guarded by the legacy media.

Algorithms suppress 'undesirable' search terms, governments lobby YouTube to strike unwelcome channels, and there have been many examples, in our own country even, of the government sending police officers to the doors of people who express 'undesirable' opinions in what is an act of blatant intimidation.

After a decade+ of Rutte, I am surprised you would still consider people who have lost all trust in government 'paranoid'.

It's amazing such news isn't picked up more broadly. I hadn't heard about those sabotage attempts. — Benkei

Well, if Germany won't be willing to stand up for it, then they'll not make a huge issue with it. You would have to respond to it. Do you take it up to NATO?

Remember that for example the Eagle S episode when Finland intervened, boarded and confiscated the tanker, it happened during Biden's watch. Finland got a lot of praise for that. But that was the NATO with the US under Biden.



It's clear as day whose behind the cabal cutting and it cannot be "an accident", because cabal cuttings of cabals didn't happen at least in my lifetime in the Gulf of Finland, and not with the frequency of today. Yet the investigations "are ongoing". Finland won't say that Russia is behind it. Just as Germany won't say Russia is behind the sabotage of it's surface combatants.

Why?

Because you have the real Putin-apologist in Trump, who likely would lash out to Germany or Finland of trying to break his peace negotiations with Putin. Remember that he has never criticized his friend Putin. All this nonsense that he would be tough on Russia is absolute horse shit. When you have already Trump saying that the war was the fault of Ukraine, how do you think he'll go with Germany whining that their navy ships are sabotaged?

Wouldn't go well with the "Putin wants peace" message that Trump is repeating. Trump wants ties to Russia to be opened, to get Russia to the G8. That Russia would be sabotaging those annoying allies wouldn't go so well for Trump.

I have to remind that there are sane people in the US. Many Republicans still hold the view that Putin is a warcriminal and the US should stand with Ukraine. Likely Marco Rubio is trying to do his best to make of the situation. But nobody, nobody will stop Trump.

Europe should understand that the US is an untrustworthy ally that under Trump will fuck everything up.

On the other hand, I would ask Norway to join the EU. It is not understandable that this country had a NATO secretary, but their citizens have no voice in European chambers. How can we allow that? Furthermore, they are very clever at managing natural resources, as they usually do with oil in their sea. — javi2541997

Let's remember that membership either to NATO or the EU is voluntary. Norway was in talks in joining the EU, did weigh the pros and cons and decided to be away. Just as Switzerland, I can understand them: they would be paying much and not getting much. And Norway was in NATO.

If NATO goes into the dustbin of history, I am sure that Norway will then do a security arrangements with Europe.

Europe has to wake up is the unreliability of the US as an ally under Trump. Heck, even some Americans are saying this to us in this forum. The unfortunate thing is to try to simply avoid this fact and think that everything is just fine, when it surely isn't. Especially not to do anything, because it would upset Trump.

Let's remember that membership either to NATO or the EU is voluntary — ssu

I know it is voluntary but...

It depends on the nation we are referring to. We were forced to join NATO (1982)—when most of the Spaniards didn't want to—as a previous step to join the EU (1986); that was what we really wanted since Franco's death. Felipe Gonzalez was treated as a traitor in that period of time, but many years later he admitted that Reagan forced him to join NATO if Spain dared to be an EU nation. We don't know if he threatened Felipe Gonzalez, but probably he did, and we were in a social context where we felt the necessity to be friends with Western democracies.

I can understand them: they would be paying much and not getting much — ssu

I don't get it, and that thought rang a bell on an old prejudice. The north feeds the south (Mediterraneans) and East (Romania or Moldova). I hope you were thinking about political relevance or the number of seats when you thought about "not getting much" and "they would be paying much"...

Joining the EU means give part of sovereignty and many things. I get it. But that's the point. Share the best of each country. We were in war for centuries, and look now. That's what I wish Europeans could see and understand. Our old continent already suffered from wars and dictatorships, so no one is entitled to give us lessons of how we should do the things up.

Joining the EU means give part of sovereignty and many things. I get it. But that's the point. Share the best of each country. We were in war for centuries, and look now. That's what I wish Europeans could see and understand. Our old continent already suffered from wars and dictatorships, so no one is entitled to give us lessons of how we should do the things up. — javi2541997

But we do understand it. It's a happy confederation of sovereign states, that tries desperately be something it cannot be, a real federal union.

Let's go through just what we get from EU and the monetary union:

1) With the euro, the country risk is lower, hence we have far lower interest rates than we would otherwise have. That's a plus. We cannot use the devaluation cycle to prop up our export industries (and in your case, make Spain cheaper for tourists). That a plus, that also has minuses.

2) We don't face our problems alone and have to negotiate all as smaller entities. We don't have to face either Russia, but also the US as far more smaller countries.

3) Moving here or especially pensioners moving from here to sunny Spain has it plus sides. These people do bring jobs to Spain, they aren't there to use your welfare programs. This is a plus when open borders that we have don't make a problem. And surprisingly many Spaniards work in Finland.

4) And then the obvious: other Europeans countries aren't there cut us into pieces if we have internal problems. Just think how lovely it would have been, when you had your internal Constitutional Crisis of 2017-2018 and the other European countries would have sided their favorite side as during the Spanish Civil War. Some would have backed Catalonia and some Spain because, why not? Time to squeeze some benefits from your dire situation. And once you kill the first people, then people adapt to the "new reality" of OK, this is war. Last time in your civil war about half a million perhaps died. Well, that didn't happen and in the EU didn't happen. And we aren't thinking that our EU members would be thinking of starting a war with us, just as we know Sweden isn't going to declare us an "artificial country" and start to preach how the natural state is that Finland is part of Sweden as it has been in history. Or something similarly crazy, as we are now hearing from Putin on Ukraine.

So there are indeed benefits to the EU already.

What people may happen to disregard is that information is a strategic resource that is contended by competing political forces to aggregate consensus. It's paramount political priority for politicians to control the flux of information - no matter the type of regime or ideology or the degree of leaders' integrity - in a way that best allows politicians do their job for the bad and/or for the good. And since truth, detail and reliability are not the only params that make the information valuable but also TIME, politicians are compelled to control the timing of the information flux and engage in a informational race with their competitors (that's why discovering or knowing since ever that that politician is lying about something is not enough to discredit a piece of political propaganda and related strategic reasons).
It absolutely doesn't matter if or how much people educate themselves and wish to not be manipulated. Believing otherwise it's not only arrogant but evidently self-defeating (BTW this belief is typical of Westerners spoiled by the myth of "critical thinking" and "rights to know" and "freedom of speech"). If you know politics better than the politicians you so bitterly complain about, why don't you yourself fix politics right now? Instead of patronising political leaders, let's see if you can run for president or prime minister of your own country without manipulating or even without being accused of being manipulative by random anonymous people (like on the internet) even when you didn't have absolutely no intention to manipulate anybody or you made your BEST to not look manipulative. Anybody is instrumental to political agendas and everybody has enough blind-spots and biases, independently from their good intentions, and which politicians normally are and MUST be in condition to exploit TO WIN POLITICAL COMPETITORS OR PREVENT POLITICAL COMPETITORS FROM COUNTER-EXPLOITING. It's precisely inherent to their job. At best, ordinary people can make the intellectual effort to understand what side one could be instrumental to in a power struggle by fallible political competitors in certain historical circumstances and have the honesty to acknowledge it.
From a geopolitical competition point of view a key problem is that Western democracies have open social media that anti-Western authoritarian regimes can troll and intoxicate with convenient fake news, but Western democracies can't do the same against them. Western democratic regimes are compelled to compensate this asymmetry one way or another, but unfortunately the easiest way they can do it is by turning authoritarian as their rivals.

From a geopolitical competition point of view a key problem is that Western democracies have open social media that anti-Western authoritarian regimes can troll and intoxicate with convenient fake news, but Western democracies can't do the same against them. Western democratic regimes are compelled to compensate this asymmetry one way or another, but unfortunately the easiest way they can do it is by turning authoritarian as their rivals. — neomac

Or then, they can try to

a) Instill social cohesion, understand the utter peril of political polarization and how cheap shots at your competing parties can backfire when the political sides don't respect them. Get the real support of their people, don't just assume that if they won some election, they don't have to think about the people until the next elections.

b) genuinely answer to the worries of the people and take these seriously on both sides of the aisle.

c) and the best thing is to tell things how they are. Don't lie. Have the ability that if the country finds itself on really tight spot, the opposition can and the administration can set differences aside and agree on the large issue, even if this naturally gives a lot of points to the ruling parties.

d) Avoid gerrymandering and avoid situations when one party can take all the power. Coalition governments are usually better than one-party governments, especially those that can pass through the representative all kinds of laws.

I agree with everything you said. I can only see benefits from being in the select EU membership. It is obvious the big change we experienced since 1986. From a poor and isolated nation to a European and developed country, which is likeable for most of you because we are friendly. Even VOX (the far-right political party) roots for Europe, but in a mode closer to Hungary or Le Pen, but no way do they do negative speeches on Europe or the European Union itself.

The only thing I dislike is that I perceive that there are still some negative prejudices against us. The coronavirus crisis was a good example of that. I remember Mark Rutte and the Finance Minister of The Netherlands saying very negative comments on Spain and Portugal. But I didn't feel frustrated about their view but the fact that it is actually true our politicians suck at managing budgets. Alas, we always had corrupt politicians and despotic kings. :sad:

Oh, it is not surprising to me that there is an important community of Spaniards working in Finland. Low incomes and unemployment are the most tough troubles in modern Spain. Since our politicians don't seem to find the solution, my fellow countrymen decide to go to other EU countries, searching for better-paid jobs.

From a geopolitical competition point of view a key problem is that Western democracies have open social media that anti-Western authoritarian regimes can troll and intoxicate with convenient fake news, but Western democracies can't do the same against them. Western democratic regimes are compelled to compensate this asymmetry one way or another, but unfortunately the easiest way they can do it is by turning authoritarian as their rivals. — neomac

I agree. Which is precisely why I proposed the prohibition on using personal data as a free resource to allow influence on an industrial scale. Your previously unedited post (thanks for this improvement) seems to consider me hopelessly out of touch with just about everything. So what would you propose to do about this?