Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/10013170

The war in Ukraine is “existential for our Europe and for France”, Mr Macron said in the interview on France 2 and TF1.

“Do you think that the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Estonians, the Romanians and the Bulgarians could remain at peace for a second [in the event of a Russian victory in Ukraine]?” he asked. “If Russia wins this war, Europe’s credibility would be reduced to zero.”

  • nivenkos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

    That isn’t realistic, and Russia has nuclear weapons too.

    The best bet is that the regime will be toppled in Russia with time, just like the USSR was.

    It’s better to lead by example with free institutions and free markets - the people of Russia will want freedom too.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      The US has nuclear weapons. Europe has nuclear weapons.

      Bullshit about “free institutions and free market”. That was the thought after the Soviet Union collapsed. And what do we have now? The exact opposite of what Russia “was supposed to be through open markets”.

      • nivenkos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • gian @lemmy.grys.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, and they would use them if they had foreign armies pushing into their territory.

          I think that here the problem is not to invade Russia, but that Russia need to left Ukraine.

        • RidderSport@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

            • lad@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              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.

              Actually Putin became president about ten years after the USSR collapsed, so there may have been a window of opportunity

              • maynarkh@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                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.

                • lad@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  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

                  • maynarkh@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    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.

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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

    • gian @lemmy.grys.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      That isn’t realistic, and Russia has nuclear weapons too.

      And so ? Should we let them to do whatever they want just because “we have nukes” ? I

      • nivenkos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        No, Biden should send the US army as he has the ability to do so.

        But he is too weak to stand up to Putin, especially in an election year, so compromise is necessary.

          • nivenkos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Keeping the troops in Ukrainian territory wouldn’t start WW3. The UK already has troops there.

        • gian @lemmy.grys.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, Biden should send the US army as he has the ability to do so.

          US does not care about Ukraine, they only antogonize Russia. Then yeah, given what we have seen on the battlefield, if NATO will go boot on the ground Russia probably will have some serious problem (not that now they have not).

          But he is too weak to stand up to Putin, especially in an election year, so compromise is necessary.

          Maybe from a US point of view, but here we are discussing Europe.
          It is about time that Europe (and EU) begin to be what we say we are.

          I think that here Macron is damn right. Russia must not win this war because any concession we do to Russia now will be seen as “we can do whatever we want because in the end they fold”.
          Putin tried to take Ukraine exactly because EU and US did nothing when he took Crimea (if not talking).

          And this whatever the US say.