- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
European leaders say President Donald Trump’s decision to pull thousands of U.S. troops out of Germany came as a surprise but is further proof that they must take care of their own security.
No, the negotiation is between Trump and Putin. Europe should be involved. Trump should not be trusted because events in Ukraine affects Europe more than the US.
This is what Europe should propose to Putin. Russia will withdraw from all land it seized from Ukraine after the 2022 invasion. NATO would be dissolved and replaced with a European alliance. Ukraine and Canada would be permitted to join but not the US. All sanctions against Russia will be lifted. Russia will not be required to pay reparations. If Putin doesn’t accept the proposal, the UK and France would send troops to Ukraine.
Europe has been attempting to negotiate with Putin before Trump ever entered the picture.
And the negotiations between Trump and Putin are just theatrics, nothing more.
Your proposal seems like a reasonable starting point on the face of it. But is unrealistic for several reasons.
The UK and France don’t have the political capital to threaten war on Russia. RN and Reform would likely dramatically surge in popularity.
Also Putin is obsessed with Novorossyia at a minimum and would interpret the threats of entry into the war as a bluff and try and call it.
And there are a lot of boomers still in charge who can’t accept that the Europe-US alliance has become transactional and thus unreliable.
The negotiations between Trump and Putin are not just theatrics. The problem is that Putin is demanding a lot and Trump presently is not willing to go that far.
The war in Ukraine cannot be allowed to continue forever. It is draining the economies of Europe. Europe could be facing the choice of fight now or later. It’s better to fight now while Ukraine is strong. The UK and France gave the Sudetenland to Hitler hoping it would stop his aggression. It didn’t. When Germany invaded Poland, the Uk and France declared war but did nothing. They should have attacked Germany from the west while much of Germany’s forces were in Poland. The result was that Germany later invaded France and despite considered one the world’s most powerful countries, surrendered in 6 weeks.
Dude do you seriously think people in power would solve this like mature adults? Representative democracy encourages maintaining the status quo since that’s better for votes than the risk of changing it. Dictatorship on the other hand encourages slow drainage and exploitation of resources and displays of power that’s how you prevent coups and foreign interference and keep your position.
In both cases it’s not the in the interest of governments to find the best solution that would benefit all parties.
Incorrect. A representative democracy must be in touch with what people want rather than keeping the status quo. The increasing popularity of far-right parties in Europe is causing centrist parties to adopt some of their policies.
Reality is much more nuanced but on average for representative democracy keeping the status quo is the safest policy. That’s why change is painstakingly slow in any direction. This is usually because the masses are either too polarised and/or fragmented that any change would cause too much heat. And/or people generally do be afraid of change and what the future holds. It’s simple human nature, that’s why we like to hold onto old items and why we enjoy nostalgia.
That’s an ideal scenario but personally I believe the modern systems of democracy in western societies are objectively too flawed for this scenario to occur and even when it does I don’t believe it’s sustainable. That’s why I think direct democracy and direct participation should be more ingrained in the culture.
What you say is idealistic and I do agree that it’s a good idea but reality is not a simulation and it’s definitely far from ideal. Politicians will always choose what’s best for them not for the people, sometimes that may align but it’s not a rule.
Putin won’t submit to Europe’s threat of war because he knows they’re bluffing and it’s true. European leaders have no real intentions of going directly into war. War is a too much of a big risk for European governments. If you don’t get every citizen in your country on board with war then you risk discontent which is not good in a representative democracy. You also risk tanking the economy and with the current global situation in the last decade I don’t think there’s anyone left who is willing to or even can absorb the shockwaves of a such major event.
This does prove my point. The far-right feeds on fear and what’s more scary than change. Be it economical change, demographic, cultural, religious, political, or even aesthetic change. They all share the same populist line “everything right now is evil and we need to do things the old way”. That’s how they recruit members. And usually people go with it until it’s too late.
P.S. I apologise if my writing is a mess it’s too late rn and English isn’t my first language.
It must not be a bluff. If Putin doesn’t accept my proposal, the UK and France must send troops into Ukraine. War would be costly, but sending weapons to Ukraine is straining Europe economies and what would Europe do if Putin is on the verge of victory?
People are willing to change if it makes sense. Equal rights for women and nonwhites are changes that many countries have accepted but some European countries have allowed a flood of migrants resulting in an increase in crime and fears that the cultural identity of the country will be changed.
Your English is very good.