The concept of a 'you' that is not embodied is the issue. 'You' cannot be Alice and Bob without real physical changes in the world.

Oh, he is really willing to do it. He needs Greenland, he needs to expand the territory of the US. — ssu

What makes you think so? Haven't you noticed that a lot of what the Trump administration does is performative. A lot of them are podcaster, newsanchors, social media-figures... even Trump made his name in showbizz. A lot of the time there's a 'show'-element to it.

I bet if Europe stands united together and doesn't blink first on Greenland, nothing happens.

I think he understands more that you give him credit for. I think he sees everything as a negotiation to get the best deal... that's why he never rules anything out. If you rule out military action for Greenland then that is something you cannot leverage to bargain for it. That doesn't mean he is willing to do it.

Part of his base traditionally were the isolationalist, who don't want the US engaged in endless conflict. No doubt another part of his base would rejoice in it... I don't know, I think he knows he can't take it to far, and taking over an allies territory with aggression seems like it could be a step to far.

And look, my sense is that he thinks he can push around Europe because it is weak in a number of ways. But I don't think he wants to push it that far that the US effectively loses all its allies, because that is part of what makes the US so powerfull.

The amount of investment going into arms production in Europe will fuel an economic boost. Also if more energy is required in the short term, it will also act as a stimulus. These effects are probably already showing in Poland which is ahead of the curve in this process. — Punshhh

Poland has and is still benefitting a lot from entering the EU market. Their economic trajectory is not comparable with that of Western European countries that already had developed their economies a lot earlier.

The militarisation could be some kind of economic boost, but I wouldn't know how this factors into the whole of the economy which has been stagnant for a while now.

I don't see how energy shortage, or a higher need could be a stimulus in itself, because cheap energy is a prerequisite for economic growth.

Why would this above be illogical? Trump already has declared that he is in charge of Venezuela, which he isn't in charge of. This would be a totally similar action. — ssu

He could do that and might do that, but 1) legally nothing has changed then. After his term, the next administration would have to affirm their willingness to enforce it over and over, because there is no agreement. And I know notions of legality might seem a bit silly in the world we seem to be heading to, but it does still matter to some extend.

And 2) he does still have to consider his political base somewhat. Even the Venezuela intervention is not all that supported, and I would imagine that taking over territory of an ally that isn't run by some crummy regime that is backed by US-rivals, would be even less supported.

Yet here's the issue: if those high prices of energy happen because of pressure from another country, if let's say the US halted energy shipments to Germany in order to pressure Germany, that backfires.

You see, people are angry if the economy is tanking because of government mismanagement. If we in Finland would start to have cuts in our energy production in the middle of the winter suddenly, we would be angry and likely the present administration would lose in the next elections. Yet if Putin would start, out of the blue, bombing or sabotaging our energy power plants and thanks to that we would have blackouts, the blame wouldn't be on the government. Heck, then you just put on clothes, use candles and buy an aggregate!

Germany and the European countries aren't poor. If they have to buy with a higher cost energy from somewhere else, they will do it. Trump pressuring Europe will simply just backfire in this case as every move to pressure Europe into something that it doesn't want will reinforce the need for strategic autonomy. (Hence Trump demanding that Europe would spend on more on defense was taken happily on by the Europeans.) — ssu

I agree that people might accept some amount of price increase in the short term if they see that it's necessary to defend the interests of the country. But companies typically will not be swayed by patriotic sentiment, but by their bottom line. They will just stop investing in Europe and relocate because the numbers don't look good. Governments already pay certain industries 'energy subsidies' just so they wouldn't leave. It's the longer term consequences politicians will have to consider too. In 5 years people will have forgotten all about the thing that caused industries to leave and the potential economic crisis that followed it.

So like I said in my first post here, whether or not they turn over Greenland will probably also depend on how much economic pain Europe is willing to accept for it, if the US wants to play it that hard that is.

They lucked out because we had a very mild winter in Western Europe. And the point is not that people will die of the cold, but that energy became much more expensive. You cannot be competitive if you pay a lot more for energy compared to the rest.

That German economy is tanking is becoming more obvious with the day. The last thing Merz, feeling the heat from the right AFD, will want is energy prices potentially going up even more.

Europe - thinking that appeasing Trump and just waiting three more years will make this self-destruction of the US built alliance system and international order to stop.

The US Congress - both the supine Republicans who assume that there's a huge support for Trump and the Democrats who seem to assume that it's business as normal with Trump and all they need is to wait for the next elections starting this November.

Trump - the real idiot who is voluntarily following Kremlin playbook on how to destroy the US Superpower.

the MAGA supporters - cheering all the way this destruction that Trump is doing. — ssu

It was a rhetorical question, I was thinking Europe.

The situation is definitely in flux. How do you see it playing out? — frank

I was thinking about Rome too. Civil war eventually let to the end of the republic, with Ceasar (a populares) appealing to the people to set aside the elites by effectively neutering the senate going forward.

Trump is a similar figure, in that he came in as a populist from outside of the ruling elite class to 'drain the swamp'... and he also is trying to bypass congress for the most part. The shift towards more emphasis on the executive power isn't new either.

How it will play out exactly in practice is hard to say really, but tensions on the system will presumably only get bigger because of certain evolutions that already baked in (shift of geo-political power to Asia, the effects of Climate change, demographics etc etc).

There is an initiative led by the government to boost domestic chip manufacturing. It's not like the US doesn't have the ability to make them. Manufacturing has been outsourced because it's cheaper. My guess is that will be navigated by the bottom line. In other words, when it becomes too expensive to maintain ties with Taiwan, the US will make more of its own chips. — frank

Can they pivot fast enough and make them at a reasonable price will be the question. Maybe automation will help because wages (and regulations) are typically the issue for manufacturing in the West compared to Asia.

What I'm most tuned into is an abiding isolationism that's been pretty potent since the Iraq disaster. When Trump promised isolation, he was definitely playing to the crowd. When you asked if an empire can remain democratic, I was thinking of Rome. Rome's empire building was the result of armed aristocrats who gained financially from foreign conquest. The US works the opposite way. American aristocrats feel no ties to the US itself. They can just leave and be global entities if they want. So they use the American military, but they don't pay back into the system to reimburse the US government.

In a way, severing ties with the rest of the world would allow the US to recover from this situation. I'm actually thinking out loud, so criticize at will. :grin: — frank

Yes when we are talking about elites these days we are really talking about capitalists. There's free flow of capital over national borders, and so they can relocate wherever they want to find the best conditions for their enterprise. That actually puts nations in competition with eachother to provide the best conditions for them... to lower wages, to get rid of environmental and other regulation etc.

In the West, but especially in the US with politics being directly financed by capitalists, the incentives are such that their interest are being served a lot of the time. Even MAGA, originally a more populist movement, has essentially been co-opted by the tech-bros with Vance as their future candidate, even though I presume a majority of the people wouldn't support their agenda's.

I'm not saying we should emulated them, but in China for instance this is different in that they have something that stands above corporate interests. I'm not sure what would be the best way to go about it in the US given it's traditions, but It seems to me it cannot be that capitalist interests are the most important force driving the politics of a nation.

Well, this actually varies by country and do remember the change in energy production happening now. For example France gets a huge share of it's power needs from nuclear energy and my country gets 90% of it's electricity from nuclear power and renewable energy. Oil isn't so dominant as it was during the 1970's. — ssu

Germany is the most important one, 'the economic engine' of Europe. I presume things will be looked at and negotiated in the context of NATO, not by looking at countries separately.

You have more faith in rational self interest than I do. Even if NATO continues going forward for now, that doesn’t mean it isn’t already being dismantled as an effective force. — T Clark

Steven Miller and Marco Rubio seem to be signaling that a real conflict is certainly not what they want, even if they can't explicitly say so because of negotiation reasons. And most of European leaders certainly would prefer keeping NATO if the US doesn't make it impossible.

It seems to me that aside from the purely political, the organisation does still function reasonably well in practice.

I don't think it's making the US difficult to govern. Most Americans are fairly sheep-like in person. They just want to feed their families and, so far, this hasn't been a big problem. At this point, I don't think anybody has a firm understanding of what the Republican party stands for. As an apolitical moderate, I miss the old conservatives. I understood them. — frank

Sure. But isn't that part of the issue though that parties seems to be radicalising each other over time. And congress basically seems to have become mostly ineffective as it can hardly pass any new laws that can really reform where necessary. That does seem to be an issue at a time the world is changing so fast.

I think some destabilization was implied by the end of the Cold War. The world has just been cruising on old ideas. Millennials are just now becoming old enough to take power and direct policy. They don't look like hawks to me. I don't think maintaining an empire is on their radar. And if you notice, neither Venezuela nor Greenland are about empire. It's about the stability and defense of things close by. If the US was threatening to take Denmark, that would be empire building. But there's no percentage in taking Denmark. — frank

The US did still bomb Iran, Nigeria and Yemen outside of its hemisphere just last year. It doesn't seem to want to leave Israel and the middle east (the younger generation does I'm aware). And I don't think it can give up control over the pacific and the Chinese sea because losing Taiwan would mean losing control over most of the chips produced in the world. The Monroe doctrine, focus on America first etc sounds nice in theory, and I'm sure many of the younger generations really would want to prefer that, but it seems to me geo-political realities would still steer the US into a more global direction, certainly as distances have become effectively shorter or irrelevant because of technology.

Defense procurement is long term thing. And that's why something like SAFE does tell a lot. — ssu

I didn't really know much about this. I certainly applaud the initiative, because we do need more independence from the US. But it's always hard to tell with these initiatives if it eventually gets realized or gets stuck somewhere in bureaucracy and/or disagreement among members.

But yes in general I would say this Trump administration has fundamentally changed something within Europe in that we all became more aware of what our more pressing challenges are. If we will be able to rise to the challenge is another matter.

Is there for Trump so much? If he get Greenland and the cost is NATO, why would it be for him a problem? Let's remember that this guy truly thinks that it's a great idea to go to Venezuela and take their oil and the US has been cheated by it's allies. — ssu

Because he sees himself as a kind of mob boss of his corner of the world, with Europe as a part of his turf. And Xi and Putin as his only peers. But as any mob boss he does need his minions to increase his importance. The issue with Europe in his mind is I think not that we are on the same team, but that we don't pay him enough respect.

I'm not sure what you refer on energy, because the US doesn't export much. — ssu

LNG, the US is our main LNG supplier, which replaced the Russian pipeline gas. And also oil.

With digital services, Europe is starting to be aware just how dependent they are on US tech. Basically the real issue here is that the US is an untrustworthy ally, and is capable of freezing the essential logistics and supplies of advanced weapons systems. This is one of the reason why the heated F-35 vs Gripen discourse in Canada, for example.

And then there's the case of France and it's independent defense industry, something again on the lines of "strategic autonomy". — ssu

It's not only in defence, every digital and computer service we use is American. They could literally crash our entire economy overnight if they really wanted to. Probably not going to happen, but you know, a lot of unexpected things seem to be happening lately.

Yes, but it is becoming a problem more and more. Not only does it make the US difficult to govern, but it's also destabilising for its allies and the world to have wildly oscillating election cycles every 4 year. Can an empire really stay a democracy longer term?

I just wrote this in the Venezuela thread on the topic:

I actually don't think NATO will be dismantled over Greenland, I changed my mind on this. Europeans are a bit shocked at the moment about it all, but will slowly come to the realisation that they really don't have anywhere else to go in the short term. And the US will realise that they can't take on the world on their own after all, so my guess is they will find a way to make it work, at least for now.

I don't think there will be a military conflict over Greenland in any case, to much is at stake for both parties, it would essentially be mutual suicide in a geo-political sense. Trump will try to negotiate for Greenland, and probably thinks he has a decent chance of succeeding as he has the better cards to play. But it also depends on how far Europe will want to take it, not in a military sense, but in terms of the price they want to pay economically, as the US is the main energy and digital services provider etc, and in terms of the Ukraine negotiations where they need the backing of the US.

It does matter in that it will prompt China and Russia to a lesser extend to reconsider their strategies going forward. It's a kind of crass reminder that we do still live in a world of spheres of influence.

I actually don't think NATO will be dismantled over Greenland, I changed my mind on this. Europeans are a bit shocked at the moment about it all, but will slowly come to the realisation that they really don't have anywhere else to go in the short term. And the US will realise that they can't take on the world on their own after all, so my guess is they will find a way to make it work, at least for now.

But I think a lot will depend ultimately on how much China and Russia will back Venezuela against the US.

That could actually be the biggest miscalculation of the Trump administration in all of this.

Yes I would think Delcy Rodriguez will be inclined to accommodate the wishes of the US otherwise she will befall a quote unquote 'worse fate' than Maduro.

There's a difference between turning a country into a vassal state and trying to install a democracy from scratch.

Destroying the Ba'ath Party in Iraq left a vacuum which created the conditions for ISIS. In Venezuela they left the regime intact... minus Maduro.

They will not need military force, as they can just threaten to cut off digital services, LNG energy imports or the necessary support to hold of Russia in Ukraine, all of which are 'existential' for Europe.

It would be the perfect squeeze, just as Europe reduced its energy imports from Russia and basically blew up any possibility to restore that in the near future. That is after the US berated Europe for propping up the Russian economy by still importing Russian energy.

Also, all of a sudden the US seems to be willing to provide a backstop to Europe for the Ukraine guarantee, which seems oddly out of character considering the past year.

Who are the real dunces in this story?

These changes take time. — ssu

The world typically doesn't want and resists change. That is until it can't any longer, and then things can change rather quickly.

If you look at human history 'gradualism' doesn't really seem like the norm, but rather periods of relative stability interspersed with rapid revolutions... punctuated equilibria.

My claim was that identity is not ideology. Ideology may be constructed around that - like whether or not to provide a safe space for transgender persons to be themselves. If religious dogma interferes with that, that is using ideology to suppress identity. — Questioner

I also think some are born that way. For others I have my doubts, and wonder if they haven't been influenced by culture to some extend. That's why I don't have an issue with helping transgenders, but at the same time do have some reservations about the way it has been dealt with culturally.

I'm not a Christian, I'm not necessarily promoting the Christian institution of marriage here... it was just an example of how one could view this issue from another perspective.

This is probably where we don't agree:

You didn't cite active promotion, you cited nuisances. No-one is taking out ads in the newspapers, "Become transgender today!" No-one is coercing anyone to become transgender. — Questioner

Earlier I said the following:

We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think anyone needs to be coerced into being transgender for it to have an effect on people, because I think people tend to copy things they see. That's why advertising works. People will opt more readily for marriage and take it seriously if they feel that is the 'normal' thing to do, if they see other famous and succesfull people do the same.

Just by virtue of normalising a whole host of other kinds of relations and genderroles, you will influence some people following these other models. Now I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but I do think you effectively alter society in a way a Christian or Muslim might object to given the way he views the world and the kind of society he would prefer.

All of this to say that it's not ideology-neutral either way, which was part of your original claim.

What kind of traditions are you talking about? — Questioner

Any religious, cultural or civic traditions... like marriage is a Christian tradition.

I think the best foundation of a society is one that includes basic human rights. — Questioner

What is the justification for it? Or we're fine to just assume it as a dogma, whereas for everything else we demand reasons?

Tradition is good, too, but tradition should not be elevated to something untouchable when said tradition interferes negatively in the lives of others. Slavery was once a tradition, too.

The idea that we should emancipate people from and critique traditions continuously is itself part of a tradition, set in motion with the onset of the enlightenment.

How do the protection of human rights erode attachment to family, culture, or country? — Questioner

It's not the human rights themselves that erode those attachments. Human rights are the result or end-product of a constant process of questioning and critiqueing traditions. They became detached from any living tradition... bloodless and abstract.

Eek, you're getting into nuisances here. Like, kinda like, whining. — Questioner

Are you serious? You asked me what I meant with actively promoting (as opposed to tacitly allowing), and I gave you the answer.

Oh, so you are arguing against individual human rights. Sorry, this just opens the door to all kinds of suppression and oppression done in the name of "tradition." — Questioner

A functioning society is prior to individual human rights, because without a functioning society there is no way to protect any kind of rights. Traditions are typically a key factor of how those societies are ordered and remain functional.

No society no matter what tradition will ever be perfectly free from oppression. If that means one needs to constantly fight said traditions until there is no more oppression, that essentially means you will end up dissolving the very foundation that enables one to even talk about rights.

I can't agree with this analogy. Universal human rights is a rational response to abuses of the past. Christian teaching from the Bible is based on ancient stories. But I will say I do believe that Jesus would be totally on board with universal human rights.

But if your argument is that you do not believe in basic human rights, you have lost me. — Questioner

There's nothing rationally 'necessary' about human rights. They came out a particular Western tradition, out of Christian and Greco-Roman notions of natural law, that diverged from how the rest of the world saw things. The Chinese tradition for instance never develloped this notion of individual rights, but allways kept viewing things from a more societal point of view.

It's really the historical event of the belief in Christ that shifted the Western tradition from viewing things in terms of tribal/group consciousness to the individual. That's not the result of reason, but a shift in basic values.

And I do think there are a lot of issues with the concept of human rights. To name a few, 1) the idea that we should attach rights to an abstract notion of the individual removed from cultural, familial and societal contexts is I think antithetical to how human beings naturally tend to behave. And 2) the idea that we, 'the west', should universally impose a notion that is alien to other civilisations is also rather problematic.

What "more and more" - this seems a fear-based response. — Questioner

I'm not sure what you mean by "actively promoting" — Questioner

From the occasional reporting about say a gay-pride event in mainstream media, at a certain point LGBTQ+ issues became front and center in a deliberate attempt to 'normalize' it to the general public. First in the US, and then with some delay in Europe, with interviews, seperate LGBTQ+ sections in newspapers, opinion pieces etc etc...

Edit: Also the whole pronoun debate. It doesn't get any more 'normative' than demanding everybody to change how to use language.

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable? — Questioner

I don't know, it's an experiment like I said, and the jury is still out it seems to me, whereas we do have 'evidence' that heterosexual mariage as a norm worked reasonably well just by virtue of the fact that we are the descendants of a culture that had that norm.

This opens the door to harm done to others. — Questioner

Sure, but I don't think preventing harm is the only factor morals should be evaluated by, I'm not a utilitarian.

is this meant to discredit it? — Questioner

No it's meant to imply that it is an experiment that hasn't been shown to work in the longer term, as opposed to other traditions.

What side of the road a society drives on does not interfere with anyone's personal rights.

Active anti-transgenderism interferes with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. — Questioner

Yeah but pointing to Universal rights is a bit like pointing to the bible to argue in favour of some Christian teaching... it's only convincing to those that already believe in it.

Yes, stable families are good for society. But this particular "norm' does not work for everyone. Besides, it's an inaccurate presumption that anything outside the "norm" is bad for society. — Questioner

Allowing more and more exceptions does erode the norm, that's just how human psychology works.... The idea "Why should I adhere to the norm if other shouldn't?" creeps in.

Also there is a difference between tacitly allowing some people to deviate from the norm (like it was before say 2010) and actively promoting it like it is some kind of new norm (after 2010).

The characteristics that make a society stable are trust, fairness, inclusion, safety, mutual support, respect, honesty, compassion and empathy - and there is no indication that transgender persons cannot contribute in these ways.

Have you just made these up by theorising about it or is there actual evidence that these are indeed the characteristic that make a stable society? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Anyone who gets angry at transgender persons for living their lives according to their own (nonharmful) "norm" needs to check their judgement at the door.

if a society is to respect human rights, respecting the rights of transgender persons comes under that umbrella. it is not a category unto itself. — Questioner

Again, this only follows if you already believe we should view these things solely from the point of view of individual rights. Not everybody does.

In advancing their right to be their authentic selves, we might say the ideology that they do advance is one that respects and protects human rights.

By contrast, the word ideology better reflects the anti-transgender position. People opposed often have very rigid concepts of male and female, and often their opposition is tied to a resentment of having to recognize anything outside of their narrow paradigms. — Questioner

I think the issue is viewing everything from a point of view individual rights to begin with, that is an ideology in itself, and historically a pretty unusual one at that.

We have many norms that have little to do with individual rights, but are aimed at making society work collectively. And they can even be arbitrary (non-natural) to some extend, and still be important to be followed. It's important that everybody drives on the right or the left side of the road for instance to avoid a mess in traffic... it really doesn't matter what anyone's preferences are on the issue.

One could see the institution of hetero-sexual marriage and gender-roles in something of a similar way, in that is presumably beneficial for a stable society to have man an women committed to each other and to the families they raise.

People like their norms and get angry, like in traffic, if they get broken. I do think that is something that comes natural to humans. We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will.

Contrary to what most seem to believe, Liberalism, individualism and the promoting LGBTQ+ rights is a certain way of viewing and organising the world. It does promote certain kinds of ways of living that are different from say those that Christianity promotes.... there's no 'ideology-free' society.

The issue is not the percentage of the total population, but the concentration in the cities. The immigrants are not integrating, have more kids than the natives and the natives are leaving the cities. That essentially means that what used to be the local cultural centres are turning into another culture... more and more visibly so.

Immigration policies may have changed over the last couple of years, but I don't see how you stop this ongoing process without measures most would rather avoid. And wherever one may fall on this issue, I think it is pretty save to say it will cause a lot of problems down the road.

In my view, the basic problem is that populism emphasizes the "us-them" dichotomy, increases political polarization and basically opposes democracy. Why?Accusing a certain group of people being The argumentation is that democracy has lead to "the elite" to control, and this can be only replaced by strong leaders and a new elite made up by the populists themselves. Hence political corruption isn't fought against transparency and reinforcing the institutions, but with a populist takeover lead by a strong leader. — ssu

Ok but it has been the case for decades now that democracy hasn't delivered governments that align with the will of the people on key issues, immigration of course being the prime example.

And then if this keeps happening over and over, if the institutions of the system don't seem to deliver, you will get a call for populists to take over and dismantle the institutions because they are perceived to be a part of the problem.

The underlying problem seems to be that institutions don't seem to work anymore and that there doesn't seem to be another way to deal with that.

I take on board your criticism, I don’t normally get involved in tit for tat comments, although in this occasion this did happen after I pointed out to Tzeentch that I perceive a clear anti European bias. — Punshhh

Don't take it to personally, it was as much me wanting to make a point about current discourse more generally, than criticising anyone in particular.

The EU and Europe are not one and the same. Anti-EU doesn't necessarily mean anti-Europe, though Putin and Trump being specifically disparaging of the EU and its associated elites does complicate things further.

It's tempting to view this merely as cynical power plays of authoritarian leaders to further their authoritarian causes... divide et impera. And then the natural response would seem to be that we have to unite and defend the EU.

But aside from geo-political interests there's also a deeper ideological battle going on for what the future direction of 'the West' should be. It think it would be a shame if we pigeonholed ourselves into merely defending the current system when there might be good reasons to criticize it.

What then has changed? — ssu

What has changed is that we feel less secure in our ideals now. And additionally the challenge to the establishment isn't coming from the left this time. After WWII certain factions from the right have always been systematically excluded from public debate and political power.

Yet when two large countries basically make it policy to be against the EU and intervene in matters of the union members, it's noteworthy and shouldn't be disregarded. And likely the outcome is different than they anticipated. Europe has to stand up against this. It doesn't stand up if it does what the bullies want it to do. — ssu

Here is how I think this plays out.

Russia does want to dissolve the EU and is actively supporting various people in our societies to further their goals.

Since we are, if not directly at war with Russia, at least supporting the party that is at war with Russia, Russia is perceived to be the enemy. And since they are the enemy, supporting a goal that is aligned with the goals of Russia is often perceived as a kind of treason.

This is how group dynamics work, if there is a perceived threat to the group, you get cries to rally around a flag that is in opposition to that threat. This dynamic then get used to silence those who might support goals that are aligned with a goal of the enemies.... propaganda on both sides.

What this does is you effectively push those opinions that don't necessarily have anything to do with being pro-Russia underground, and risk radicalising them to the point that might eventually end up being pro-Russia, or at least more anti-establishment.

This also prevent any further public discussion on the merits of the EU itself or the war in Ukraine, effectively preventing people from forming a more secure reasoned-out position on these issues... it mostly becomes a matter of supporting the group then.

If people would have a more secure position on these issues, Russian propaganda would become less effective in swaying opinions. If opinions are mostly a matter of supporting the group Russian propaganda has to potential to flip people to their side if they manage to pierce through some of the half-truth that are promoted by the West.

People have favourable views on the EU now partly because the cries to rally around the flag, but that could change pretty quick if they are based on nothing more substantial.

Anyway, Russia wanting something is in my opinion not a good reason for just doing the opposite. It's reactive, narrowly defined in opposition, and I think It's better to look to be proactive, and look at things in their whole context.

I object to the framing that anyone who wants to get rid of the EU is one the side of Putin. The fact that Putin or Trump happen to want a similar thing shouldn't prevent us from evaluating something on its own merits.

This is a tactic that has been shown to been dangerous and contra-productive, for instance in the case of immigration where any discussion of the topic has for the longest time been made virtually impossible because of various accusations of racism, fascism or Nazism and the like as soon as the issue was brought up.

You should know better.

Well sure, like I said I don't disagree generally, the question is what kind of arrangement we do want.

I don't think a lot of them are doing that great to be honest. And those that are doing fine, have other supra-national organisations or agreements, like say ASEAN.

I don't disagree generally, but it's maybe a bit simplistic to just do away with the EU. There's some things that probably are to our benefit, like the single market to name one. I don't see how you stay competitive for instance if you simply fall back to the nation state of old... the world has changed you know.

Again here, if you elect the Comission directly by EU voters, you seriously undermine the nation states and national sovereignty. The European Council has no say to the Comission. It basically creates just parallel organizations that structurally aren't cooperating. And the voting? It's basically just Germans, the Spanish, the Italians and the French can choose the leader. What do other nations think, who cares? — ssu

Ok I agree that it would be difficult to find a good formula, but it's not as if nation states have more sovereignty by remaining subservient to an unelected bureaucracy.

It seems like that, but just focus a bit more in the actions of each member state, be they in EU or NATO. Let's take defense and security policy. For my country it's all about Russia. But for Spain and Portugal, it's North Africa, which is totally logical. If Morocco collapsed into a bloody civil war like in Syria, for Portugal and Spain it would a real problem. For Finland, not so. But then, if "Russian volunteers" marched over the border of Estonia to help to Russian minority in Estonia, this would be a serious issue for Finland. Yet for Portugal and Spain it's far away. Yet the cooperation does work, Spain, Portugal and Finland are in the "Coalition of the Willing" when it comes to Ukraine, yet this cooperation is done by sovereign states from their own national interests. If it would be Brussels deciding where to send your country's armed forces, that is totally different that it's your country's elected government making that decision. — ssu

Coalition of the willing will always be reactive. There's no way to project power proactively like that, and so you will effectively be at the mercy of other great powers. The choice is not between sovereignty or Brussels, but between Brussels or Washington... or Peking or Moscow.

Actively destroying everything older generations have worked for since WW2 isn't facing reality, it's sheer stupidity. — ssu

No, older generations have left the younger generations without perspective.

He also explains well just why US prosperity is dependent on the dollar being the reserve currency (and why this is related to the Superpower status that the US held) and how the NSS is chipping this away. — ssu

Things change. Percentage of world GDP goes down, debts go up... the US was already in the process of losing its position of global hegemon. At some point you have to face reality, the longer you deny it, the harder the fall.

Perhaps the problem is that the whole structure of EU is a bit difficult to grasp: — ssu

The important thing to realise is that the Commission has the initiative for legislation. Before things get to Parliament and the Council of leaders, there's a whole proces where draft legislation get discussed with the administrations of the different member states. When there is eventually a final draft this get sent to the Council and Parliament for approval. In practice this means that the Commission sets the agenda and largely get to decide what the legislation consists of. Because of the byzantine nature of the proces and complexity of the legislation usually the Council and parliament just approve things. It's a bit like with congress in the US, where de facto the president and his administration gets to decide for the most part and congress just approves things. The difference is that the president in the US is elected whereas the Commission is not.

This is to illustrate the essential bureaucratic nature of the EU. I would rather have an elected excecutive because that has more democratic legitimacy.

A monetary union is 100% monetary policy. It's totally different thing from a risk point for a foreign investor to buy a Greek loan in Drachmas (with the threat of devaluation) than giving a loan to German with the Bundesbank behind the Deutsche Mark. This was the thinking when the monetary union happened and that lowered the interest rates considerably. That is something every person feels.

Yes, Poland has gotten aid, just as have the Southern countries. — ssu

The aid was not the most important part, it's the access to the free market that was very beneficial for them.

EU member states are independent sovereign states with their own history, culture and sense of patriotism. You simply cannot deny this. EU will be, always, really a confederacy, not a federalist union. Sorry, but Finns will be Finns, Swedes will be Swedes and the French will be the French.

If we just assume we can replace this fact, we are lying to ourselves. — ssu

I'm more than fine to respect the cultural heritage and sovereignity of the states where that makes sense. But I don't think it does make a lot of sense on foreign policy, certainly not when it pertains to geo-politics or international trade, because de facto the security and intelligence is already organisated on the supra-national level of NATO, or for trade in larger European trade-agreements.

If we think we can still have an effective foreign policy on the level of the member states, while the states have very little competencies left that are related to that, I think we are lying to ourselves.