European Politics Thread

Are the first and the third questions related? Baltic states are Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, not Romania and Bulgaria. Just wondering, no problem on my part.

My country, when it comes to immigration from Eastern Europe, gets mostly Ukrainians. Romanians also used to immigrate a lot, but it has died down somewhat.

Most of the immigrants from Eastern Europe, are usually employed in stuff like civil construction and other low-paid jobs. They usually get integrated well, with the exception of the poorest of them and some of the gypsy people from there (not because they're necessarily a problem to us, but because gypsy men tend to order and exploit their wives and children to beg for money which they will then get at the end of the day. Small robberies also happen once in a while, but then again, that happens almost everywhere).

In any case, most immigrants in my country tend to come from outside Europe and mostly from Portuguese-speaking countries (e.g. Brazil and Angola).

edited 30th Aug '14 4:24:15 PM by Quag15

They weren't related (except broadly to my focus on eastern europe). Thank you for the response though.

As for the question of how well do Polish people assimilate, my answer is: depends on people. I noticed that less educated ones, especially those hailing from villages and small towns, tend to stick together and isolate from the host country citizens, but people with college education are much more open.

But, more pressing issue: what's your take on the current Polish Prime Minister being elected the President of the European Council? Over here in Poland, some right-wing shit-slinging is going on, but hey, those are right-wingers, don't expect civility from them. Also, since foreign policy coordination depends on the Council President, I believe that it's going to put the screws on Russia, and rightly so. Maybe it's egoistic weltpolitik, but right now the EU is idling and delving mostly on non-issues and media-spun hot topics without real importance, while everyone else is trying to get on top of the world.

edited 2nd Sep '14 1:39:12 PM by NotSoBadassLongcoat

Donald Tusk is simply too pro-Washington. That's my main complaint. It would like to see us being less dependent on the US at some point, but, now that he's in, he will stop or hamper that.

Also, he's very friendly with Merkel, which doesn't also bode well for the southern countries like mine, since Poland might support a continuation of the austerity shenaningans. Not to mention that he supports the free markets, which, nowadays, is something of a dirty word/system that leaves a sour taste in many people thoughout the world.

EDIT: Fixed. Thanks (I was a bit tired after coming from another day at my internship).

edited 2nd Sep '14 2:16:28 PM by Quag15

That sounds to me less like "on the other hand" and more "also". About the only good thing I can imagine is that Poland is a bit more proactive in military policy.

Well, I wouldn't be so sure of that "pro-Washington" stance, the "Waitergate" scandal that revealed recordings from private meetings between the government members (in private rooms of high-end restaurants, and a waiter was one of the people held, hence the name) had the upside of revealing that politicians believed to be pro-Washington aren't quite so (for example, the Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski described Poland's approach to the USA as "cock-sucking" and "playing a nigger"), mostly because of the US giving them the cold shoulder in matters like visas or military support for Poland. Also, there is one very important thing about Donald Tusk: he's very afraid of making unpopular decisions, and he witnessed the near-universal backlash against his government's support for ACTA. That means his perceived pro-Washington stance might be tempered by popular opposition in the European Parliament.

As for free market support, that's another misconception, very prevalent in the local politics as well. During the last seven years, the Polish government hasn't done anything for the free market. They pretty much destroyed the private pension system (that was flawed as fuck in the first place, there are class action suits against companies that ran the voluntary private pension schemes because of abusive clauses being practically copy-pasted across the market, and "operating costs" for the mandatory part being grossly inflated in at least some cases) to help the state pension system that is shitting itself bloody anyway and will turn out to be insolvent in a couple of years.

Good news about austerity, though. Waitergate also had the good side: Ministry of the Interior Bartlomiej Sienkiewicz was recorded saying that at least Poland will experience an economic upturn next year as the crisis is finally coming to an end.

Many here may have seen this post on other On-Topic threads, but since we're discussing Poland and its geopolitical role in the future, I'd thought it'd be relevant to share what I've already said on the Military and Ukraine threads. Plus, Not-So-Badass Longcoat is an authentic Pole, and I'd be sincerely interested in what he'd have to say regarding Poland's increasingly strategic military role in Eastern Europe.

Regarding Europe and its NATO-aligned militaries as a whole:

NATO plans a new high-readiness force to counter Russian aggression

It's rather shocking of how much has NATO changed since The '90s after only a period of two decades; the downgrading of its military forces from their previous 1980's readiness levels has gotten to the point where even basic reaction forces capable of being deployed at a moment's notice have to be reformed from scratch; the days of having entire army groups in central Europe put on stand-by at the news of any major Warsaw Pact activity are of a bygone era when it was generally feared that the Soviets would try and steamroll over Europe any day they'd liked. That being said, it'd be interesting to see how the old NATO from The '80s would tackle the current conflict in Ukraine and the Crimea. The generals of the Cold War must be rolling in their graves, and if not, reading the newspaper with a palm on their face.

It seems to me that Poland would be the one to assume the role that West Germany had formerly played back in the days of the Iron Curtain, what with the former bordering Russia and being on the immediate frontier of an armed conflict in the worst case scenario, not to mention having the only decently powerful military with reliable allies in the region capable of going toe-to-toe with the Russians; while that may be a bit of an exaggeration of Warsaw’s capabilities, they’d certainly stand up to the Russians much better than the Georgians, while their army is so damningly huge◊ compared to the Ukrainians◊ that I actually had to use MS Paint and edit two images together to post that order of battle of theirs.

To quote fellow troper Sabre’s Edge:

However, the Polish military still has its shortfalls that need to be overcome should it try to stay in competition with the Russian military, and as ''Modern War'' magazine explains:

All this being said, I'd like to ask how the current war in Ukraine is affecting the Polish people who live in a country directly bordering the nearest geopolitical hotspot to Western Europe.

edited 2nd Sep '14 8:13:06 PM by FluffyMcChicken

How? In no way, that's how. First, pretty much nobody here knows how strong our armed forces really are, second, we still have to deal with the maliciously moronic dismantling of our military intelligence (sure, they were corrupt, but that wasn't even the reason in the first place!) and paranoid rightards claiming that the Polish Army becomes a junkyard for Western countries. Third, the same paranoid rightards indulge in bizarre saber-rattling without as much as a cursory reality check, and spout bullshit obviously dictated by Russian propaganda, bringing up the topic of Wolyn Genocide as an argument against helping the Ukrainians and, at the very same time, curiously forgetting how the Soviets murdered Polish officers in Katyn, screwed us over during the Warsaw Uprising, oppressed the freedom fighters from the Home Army (considered "true Polish soldiers" and "patriots" by the rightard bunch) after the war and generally were dicks to Poland for half a century. Better yet, it's the left (considered "communist" by the rightards) that speaks the loudest about Russia being a real threat and the West unwilling to take serious action - IIRC, there was a piece by well-known socialist journalist Slawomir Sierakowski published in the New York Post, warning about members of the GOP flirting with Russia.

But one thing is sure: if the Russkies mess with us directly, we're gonna be PISSED. Like, as a nation.

edited 3rd Sep '14 9:38:05 AM by NotSoBadassLongcoat

Seeing how Poland is a member of both NATO and the EU, that's unlikely.

Russia is apparently starting to believe its own propaganda, despite knowing the facts well. Putin will spin the imperial fantasy as long as he can, just to stop people from hitting the streets and demanding his head for all the bullshit that happened in the last few years. Either he starts a global war and the NATO will pop a cap in his ass sooner or later, or he chickens out and it'll be his own nation, finally seeing the delusional propaganda break down, that strings him up and goes looking for another "strongman".

Putin ain't gonna start nothing of the sort. It's not just that NATO can wipe the floor with him economically & militarily but there's a high chance that nukes will start flying and... ya know...

Now, if ,by some grand misfortune, NATO dissolves, that's a different story.

edited 3rd Sep '14 9:50:31 AM by LogoP

The nukes are really the only deterrent. Clearly the economics haven't, and assuming NATO can wipe Russia out militarily is also a case of one believing in their own propaganda.

Russia isn't gonna go beyond Ukraine.

Well, yes, NATO can mop the floor with Russia, militarily. Nobody will be marching into Moscow, of course but it can cripple their offensive capabilities towards Europe.

And, when it comes to economic war, I don't think we've seen the worst yet. Winter is coming and if those gas prices go up...

First, that's an awful lot of goodwill, believing that it will end with "just one bite" after witnessing the attempt to take "just one bite" off Georgia struck down.

Second, I'm not saying that the eventual victory over Russia would be easy, even if they're a has-been when it comes to the "global superpower" status.

The only thing that seriously bugs me is EU's political shortsightedness and no backup plan for having to deal with a notoriously fickle fuel supplier like Russia. Russian foreign trade policies have been, again and again, proved to be heavily politicized or even full of shit. Observing the cringeworthy internal policies of Russia (rampant homophobia, widespread corruption, laws and actions against freedom of speech and freedom of press) and being politically motivated to speak against them, we should have had an alternative to Russian oil and gas in place since a long time.

EU can try and turn to liquefied natural gas (LNG) as an alternative form of energy.

And like Ukraine, Georgia was also formerly part of the Soviet Union (also, Saakashvili shot first). Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union are not the same thing even if one was puppet to the other. If Putin DOES go beyond the former Soviet empire, then I'll be both surprised and concerned. Til then though, none of this is evidence that Europe beyond the Soviet borders is in danger of anything.

Ultimately my concern is that Europe will wear itself out worrying about Russia when it should focus on problems within.

Able to stop a Russian offensive is not the same thing as "able to wipe the floor" with Russia.

edited 3rd Sep '14 11:21:34 AM by FFShinra

Trust me, Europe worries about a lot of internal problems, barely problems and non-problems already, but most of their "worrying" is just idle buzzing. Russia may prove to be an excellent catalyst for tackling problems that would be considered "too difficult" in different circumstances. The Russian invasion in Ukraine also poses some serious PR consequences for the EU - both in the matter of presenting an united front and proving they do something for "supporting democracy" aside from talking about it a lot.

Crossposted from the Eastern Europe thread because of Greece and Serbia:

Truth be told, the general sentiment here is that the Russians ^note : ORTHODOX BROTHERS!! are just taking back what's theirs & are standing-up against morally bankrupt West. Even the embargo is semi-forgiven on the grounds that we should have never agreed on those sanctions in the first place.

The government doesn't seem to agree with this sentiment though. And, yeah, there's a slight sense of bitterness towards Russia.

That's terrible. The notion of "moral bankruptcy" is an old chestnut, often brought up by the local rightards and unsurprisingly so, an awful lot of them was in the Communist party back in the day, when they spouted the exact same bullshit. And seriously, if your country was EVER under an occupation by another, avoid the phrase "taking back what's theirs" like fire. Because next time, someone might take "back" your home, because "it was theirs" once.

edited 3rd Sep '14 2:47:39 PM by NotSoBadassLongcoat

Thing is, the whole "moral bankrupcy" of the West isn't an opinion held by right wingnuts. The common people feel that we share a lot more with Russia (culturally, religiously, economically) than with "the West". Craddle of western civilization be damned.

The position that we should "take back what's ours" is most definitely held mostly be right wingnuts, though. And I mean on the faaaar side of the right.

edited 3rd Sep '14 3:00:18 PM by LogoP

@Not So Badass Longcoat - They worry only so far as how it will affect the status quo. They don't actually do anything about it, and going in a war of choice (and it IS a choice for at least Western Europe), be it directly or indirectly, incurs costs the public will not be willing to bear.

Of course, if that wasn't the case, you'd be right. To that end, the Visegrad Group will have to do it in their place, since they actually have the motivation and the public support.

Cross-posting this from several other threads:

The Russians have recently announced their discontent at NATO's plans for a new 5,000-strong high-readiness force in reponse to the deteroriating relations regarding Ukraine. Although such a move would effectively disregard the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act in which “in which the Western alliance agreed to not permanently station a substantial number of combat troops in Eastern Europe”, the BBC article on the subject states that “NATO insists that while there will be pre-positioned supplies and more exercises in Poland for example, these will not be permanent new bases.” Obviously, “. . . that is not going to cut much ice in Moscow.”

The Moscow Times reports that “a Russian general has called for Russia to revamp its military doctrine, last updated in 2010, to clearly identify the U.S. and its NATO allies as Moscow's enemy number one and spell out the conditions under which Russia would launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the 28-member military alliance.”

I’ve got a feeling that the wind just got a lot colder in Europe don’t you think?

Now in the right place — Hollande's ex-partner Valérie Trierweiler reveals her suicide bid in the Elysée Palace after his affair was revealed.

Scotland sets Madrid and Barcelona on path to confrontation — Catalonia is now pushing for independence from Spain.