…which is why we urgently need to dump the general rule of “frozen conflicts prevent accession into NATO” and change them into tailormade agreements. Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine: so far, Russia has an incentive for frozen conflicts to steer these countries on the course it wants. We should no longer allow this.
Russia is not going for a direct confrontation with NATO as it would loose that for sure.
This is what everyone was saying looking at those 100kish Russian soldiers at the Ukrainian border at the beginning of 2022. “They won’t do it, that is not enough men”.
And who says it is going to be a open escalation? Remember Crimea? Hacking attacks? Russia is all about destabilisation just below the threshold of clear and open aggression. Them stirring up some bullshit in for example Narva will put the west to the test. And I’m sure there will be a lot of voices on our side warning against an open conflict with Russia just because they seized a small border town in a small country.
It’s the same as in Ukraine: if Putin has enough reason to believe it might work, he will try it.
A Ukraine with nukes is as bad for Russia as a Ukraine in NATO. Russia wants to rule again over “its” (aka Soviet) lost “sphere of influence”. This is textbook imperialism and if that’s what you want to defend here, fine. Just don’t expect me to agree.
and permanently integrating it into one geopolitical side
I like how you talk about it as if it’s about game pieces on a game board. What about the people from Ukraine? How about letting them decide on which “geopolitical side” they want to live?
I forgot the Baltics! How could I forget NATO members Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (since 2004)?
Don’t worry. Everyone does.
Just because they are a neo-liberal rag hating on a government not sharing their delusion doesn’t make it true.
Your whole tirading always fails at this point, because the article criticises the debt brake. You bark up the wrong tree.
The death of the unloved “traffic-light” coalition is long overdue.
…which is a sentiment almost unanimously spread across Germany. I.e. also including those that align themselves with one of the partaking parties. No party politics (conservative spin?) here. Also, you omitted the part where it stated that such a coalition would in no case be fit to stand up against Trump, which is the point made to justify the opening “long overdue death”. Would you disagree with this assessment?
Your cited passage:
Europe needs more joint money for Ukraine and a large EU budget for defence. Yet the coalition had set its face against any new version of the covid-recovery fund that has injected hundreds of billions of euros into European economies in the past three years.
Of course the Union had a blast sueing the coalition. But it wasn’t who sued them that made it illegal but the constitution. In my world, it shouldn’t matter who sues to determine if something is illegal or not.
But sure the debt brake “urgently needs reform, which in turn requires a new government”…
Well, yes it does! The traffic light coalition wasn’t willing/able to overcome the debt brake and exploded due to this issue. So now a new government is needed. I see no party politics here. Could well be a new government with Olaf and others willing to cancel the debt brake.
one let by the moronic conservatives with an austerity fetish who actually put that bullshit into the constitution in the first place.
This is coming entirely from you and is not part of the article in the slightest. As stated several times already, it even makes clear claims against the debt brake.
So let’s not talk about party politics as that’s not what the article is about…
Exactly. The one being so strongly agitated by this article is you and I really wonder what you read into it that it makes you so angry. This isn’t a conservatives vs social democrats text in the slightest but instead makes some general yet interesting points about the state of affairs in Europe given the arising challenges in our future.
A future, mind you, where it is vital for us to stand together against pressures from the outside instead of being completely self-absorbed and losing ourselves in petty disputes. Which is why I find it so strange that you chose to be offended instead of trying to listen to the author.
Don’t you think it makes more sense to actually discuss the article linked here instead of having a general discussion about party politics and what media allegedly prefers who?
Especially since the article contains opinions that completely align with the commentator who criticised it so harshly.
they beg for return of the debt-brake-fetish party
As stated above: this article criticises the debt brake as “absurd”.
I read your comment and I read the article.
Somehow I’m under the impression that you either read a different article or didn’t read the article properly.
It even also criticises the debt brake just as you.
Russia won’t become any less dangerous even if we were to appease to them.
I read you talking about establishing a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. If this isn’t limiting Ukraine’s decision space over the head of Ukrainians, what is?