Which countries do you wish a leading role in Europe?

[toomuchtime_]

If you are familiar with Putin's speech, held at the German parliament in 2001 - then you will know why after that speech the USA pushed so hard for the NATO Eastward-Expansion.

Putin basically told the entire world - that in view of common cultural and shared historic European connections - Russia could naturally replace the USA as the economic and political partner to Europe. He never mentioned Russia "dominating" nor "controlling" Europe - but simply that there is no need for Europe to be lead and controlled by the USA, which shares factually no cultural nor historic connection with Europe. And is clearly a rival to Europe in regards to economic issues and does not share the US policy of imperialism or hegemony.

Therefore, that Europe incl. Russia would be clearly able to form their own USA independent - economical, political and cultural bloc.

Russia's then economy and population count, even until today would not be strong enough to dominate nor to control Europe anyway. As to how "harmonious" or positive this partnership would/could have been - we will never know, since the USA and Britain made sure it would never happen.

That Putin's mindset towards Europe had changed considerably after the NATO - Eastward-Expansion from 2004 onward is also undeniable. He somehow "errantly" believed that the German culture and society would still be that of e.g. 1910 - very likely inspired/influenced by the East-German culture and spirit (free of US influence) that he was very familiar with.

Let me remind you once again what the word, imperialism, means:

What is a simple definition of imperialism?


Imperialism is when a country extends its power into other territories for economic or political gain. The goal of imperialism is to acquire resources, often through exploitation and force. Motives for imperialism include economic, cultural, political, moral, and exploratory control.Nov 30, 2022

The very fact that Putin and you claim Russia should have the right to determine the foreign policy of eastern European nations betrays Putin's imperialist ambitions. Putin objects to the US/NATO only because they prevent him from trying to capture and colonize eastern European countries one state at a time.

 

[Zebra]

@ leading role

I do not mean "leading totally".

 

[Kruska]

Let me remind you once again what the word, imperialism, means:

What is a simple definition of imperialism?


Imperialism is when a country extends its power into other territories for economic or political gain. The goal of imperialism is to acquire resources, often through exploitation and force. Motives for imperialism include economic, cultural, political, moral, and exploratory control.Nov 30, 2022

I had already informed you that your quoted definition of Imperialism is WRONG - the part you wrote in bold refers to Hegemony, and it is correctly written in plural (territories) Imperialism does NOT apply towards a single country or a single territory being attacked by a neighbor-state. E.g. Russia's attack onto Ukraine - has NOTHING to do with Imperialism. Neither had e.g. Argentina's attack onto the Malvina's, nor Iraq's attack onto Kuwait, nor Turkey's attack onto Cyprus, have anything to do with Imperialism. Aside from the fact that the UK is indeed an Imperialistic power.

And neither Argentina, nor Iraq, nor Turkey had ever been termed to be Imperialists - it's only the fake Western MSM and people like you bringing in the absurdity and false accusation of the Russian Federation being Imperialistic. Turkey in the meantime has also attacked and occupied territory of another sovereign country called Syria - as such your Imperialism does actually apply towards Turkey, but since it is a NATO member, the Western MSM keeps dead quiet.

Russia aka Putin justifies his attack onto Ukraine, with NATO being a threat towards the integrity and sovereignty of the Russian nation.

So far you have been unable to forward any proof in regards to Russia having subjected several countries towards Russian Imperialism or Hegemonic interests.
However both the USA and NATO are proven Imperialistic and Hegemonic states and Organizations. Which you clearly prefer to ignore.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I had already informed you that your quoted definition of Imperialism is WRONG - the part you wrote in bold refers to Hegemony, and it is correctly written in plural (territories) Imperialism does NOT apply towards a single country or a single territory being attacked by a neighbor-state. E.g. Russia's attack onto Ukraine - has NOTHING to do with Imperialism. Neither had e.g. Argentina's attack onto the Malvina's, nor Iraq's attack onto Kuwait, nor Turkey's attack onto Cyprus, have anything to do with Imperialism. Aside from the fact that the UK is indeed an Imperialistic power.

And neither Argentina, nor Iraq, nor Turkey had ever been termed to be Imperialists - it's only the fake Western MSM and people like you bringing in the absurdity and false accusation of the Russian Federation being Imperialistic. Turkey in the meantime has also attacked and occupied territory of another sovereign country called Syria - as such your Imperialism does actually apply towards Turkey, but since it is a NATO member, the Western MSM keeps dead quiet.

Russia aka Putin justifies his attack onto Ukraine, with NATO being a threat towards the integrity and sovereignty of the Russian nation.

So far you have been unable to forward any proof in regards to Russia having subjected several countries towards Russian Imperialism or Hegemonic interests.
However both the USA and NATO are proven Imperialistic and Hegemonic states and Organizations. Which you clearly prefer to ignore.

The very notion that Russia should have control over the foreign policies of its neighbors, which you repeat in this post, is an imperialist perspective. You use words like imperialist and hegemony but if you search for their meaning on the Internet, you find they fit Russia but not the US or NATO.

I won't call you a liar because you may just be stupid, and I won't call you stupid because you may just be a liar, but your argument that Russia does not fit the definition of Imperialist is not a position that would be held by any honest, intelligent person.

 

[zaangalewa]

Cool. It would be great to see Poland leading Germany and France.

The anti-republics Poland and Hungaria should be thrown out of the EU.

 

[zaangalewa]

Personally I do not favor terms like Nation and Nationalism - since it implies corrupt and manipulative government party control, and not control by the people.
Take Bavaria as an example: We are proud of our heritage and culture -

Are we?

we do not aspire to influence or control others, therefore we reject and oppose those trying to control us - which naturally also includes our own elected government.

We have a far better education system then Germany overall - since we have autonomous rights and laws within the German Federation.
Our parliamentary and government laws provide for peoples referendums - similar to Switzerland. Anything that does not correspond with what the people want, can't go through in Bavaria, due to the so called peoples petition rights. (It's entirely up to the people to make use of these laws - or be lazy and let the government infringe onto your rights).

Therefore of all the German Federation states - Bavaria has e.g. the least migrant% of all.

75% of the population of Bavaria are migrants - most of them are Prussians.

Even in regards to EU laws and regulations - Bavaria has the constitutional right to object and to refuse such laws - see e.g. agriculture, food and beverages.
Unlike Germany, and all other EU members, Bavaria has never signed/validated the memorandum as to where EU law presides over national law.

If Bavaria would leave the federal republic of Germany - what she will not do - then we will for sure not leave the European Union - except Switzerland will conquer us.

 

[zaangalewa]

@ leading role

I do not mean "leading totally".

That's your fate when you use words like "leading" or "leader" (="Führer").

 

[zaangalewa]

... but Hungary and Poland may lean in the right direction. ...

What's your nationality?

 

[ActionJackson]

What's your nationality?

Native American of Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh, and Dutch descent.

 

[zaangalewa]

... However both the USA and NATO are proven Imperialistic and Hegemonic states and Organizations. Which you clearly prefer to ignore.

An enemy of our NATO and of our USA is for sure not a Bavarian.

 

[zaangalewa]

Native American of Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh, and Dutch descent.

Strange. No idiots under your ancestors. Why are you an anti-European and anti-democratic idiot? How comes? Or do you not know that Hungaria is using a quasi-Russian oligarchic system and that Poland ignores the rule of law? What's your basic idea for the political future for the USA? The constitution of the USA replaced with toilet paper?

 

[ActionJackson]

Strange. No idiots under your ancestors. Why are you an anti-European idiot?

Not anti-European. Just anti-EU (the Marxist/Globalists hell-bent on controlling the entire region).

 

[xyz]

They could learn a lot from Bhutan.

But really, none, although the Union should be made stronger and not require unanimous decisions for everything.

 

[Kruska]

The very notion that Russia should have control over the foreign policies of its neighbors, which you repeat in this post, is an imperialist perspective.

Again YOU are lying - since I never stated that

but if you search for their meaning on the Internet, you find they fit Russia but not the US or NATO.

Again YOU are lying

Quote:
imperialism;... the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy.

If the USA/NATO would not have pursued it's imperialistic Eastward-Expansion - or the Ukraine would not have pursued to join an imperialistic organization such as NATO - aka would have stayed NEUTRAL - then upon Russia attacking such a neutral state would be a sign towards Russian Imperialism, it would be a confirmation of Russian Imperialism if Russia would continue to attack/subdue further sovereign states.

Imperialism also in it's initial definition in Marxism by Karl Kautsky a Czech socialist, and Marxist theorist - the definition of Imperialism applies to extending power and dominion towards territories Far Away - as such Colonialism practiced by countries, and therefore termed as being Imperialistic powers.

The correct definition in regards to Russia would be:
Due to the imperialistic and hegemonic policy of the USA and NATO, Nationalism has arisen in Russia - resulting in refuting US and NATO hegemonic policies towards Russia - if necessary even by military means.

Since you are hell bend on spreading lies and even refute to acknowledge the proven Imperialistic policy of the USA/NATO - discussing with you in that matter is just a pure waste of time.

 

[zaangalewa]

Not anti-European. Just anti-EU (the Marxist/Globalists hell-bent on controlling the entire region).

Nice weather in your psychiatric hospital, Rumpelstiltskin?

 

[José]

KRUSKA

ZAANGALEWA

L.K. EDER

BLEIPRIESTER

ZEBRA

HELP PEOPLE!!

IT'S A GERMAN INVASION!!

THE DAMN KRAUTS ARE "BLITZKRIEGING" OUR BOARD!!

IF AMERICA AND RUSSIA FAIL TO SAVE US WE WILL ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN 10 YEARS FROM NOW!!

 

[José]

Kruska is correct.

Offering protection to faraway countries so that they let the foreign power use their territories to advance its geopolitical interests is one of the hallmarks, one of the main MODI OPERANDI of modern imperialism, also known as neocolonialism, ie, imperialism without formal colonies.

The invasion and military occupation of the entire territory of Ukraine by Russia, in and of itself, in principle, without context, could be construed as a case of russian imperialism as toomuchtime is doing.

But when I introduce the historic context in which the invasion occurred (the military encirclement of Russia by the West), I see a legitimate case of self-defence.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Kruska is correct.

Offering protection to faraway countries so that they let the foreign power use their territories to advance its geopolitical interests is one of the hallmarks, one of the main MODI OPERANDI of modern imperialism, also known as neocolonialism, ie, imperialism without formal colonies.

The invasion and military occupation of the entire territory of Ukraine by Russia, in and of itself, in principle, without context, could be construed as a case of russian imperialism as toomuchtime is doing.

But when I introduce the historic context in which the invasion occurred (the military encirclement of Russia by the West), I see a legitimate case of self-defence.

The historical context is eastern European countries, formerly held captive by Russia for 45 years, clamoring to join NATO to defend themselves against the Russian empire. Since there is no imminent threat of Russia being attacked, there is no legitimate case for self-defense.

 

[zaangalewa]

KRUSKA

ZAANGALEWA

L.K. EDER

BLEIPRIESTER

ZEBRA

HELP PEOPLE!!

IT'S A GERMAN INVASION!!

THE DAMN KRAUTS ARE "BLITZKRIEGING" OUR BOARD!!

IF AMERICA AND RUSSIA FAIL TO SAVE US WE WILL ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN 10 YEARS FROM NOW!!

Sorry. But I know only one US-American who speaks German well - and she lives since 32 years in Berlin. I doubt you are able to learn another German dialect except English in only 10 years. The main problem: We have strict rules - and 50% exceptions from this rules.

 

[Zebra]

KRUSKA

ZAANGALEWA

L.K. EDER

BLEIPRIESTER

ZEBRA

HELP PEOPLE!!

IT'S A GERMAN INVASION!!

THE DAMN KRAUTS ARE "BLITZKRIEGING" OUR BOARD!!

IF AMERICA AND RUSSIA FAIL TO SAVE US WE WILL ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN 10 YEARS FROM NOW!!

Funny!