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.”

  • 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.