The situation in Belarus

[Rajma]

Makes sense then, its the main weapon Russia employ's against the EU. Helps right wing nationalistic parties get elected all over the EU, who just so happen to also be anti-EU. Its the one thing that could eventually bring it down.

I agree. However, this time it feels different though to the first large wave of illegal migration into the EU, I think it may actually backfire Russia in a sense that it’s now likely to force a stronger stance from EU on this issue which would appease right-wingers in the EU giving less material to work with for those right wing parties trying to get into power. Let’s see though.

 

[harms]

Good summary. Though on the bolded I don’t think it’s true at all. There’s pretty much no division when it come this issue in EU eastern block countries.

I wanted to be as non-judgemental as possible, but yeah, I could've used some stronger words to describe the general attitude.

 

[harms]

I think it may actually backfire Russia in a sense that it’s now likely to force a stronger stance from EU on this issue which would appease right-wingers in the EU giving less material to work with for those right wing parties trying to get into power.

But won't right-wing parties be empowered by those potential decisions? Considering that the left-wing opposition is unlikely to stay silent in the wake of those hypothetical changes, right-wing parties have enough motivation to keep their electorate engaged, but they'll get a huge point boost by successfully seeing out a major change in the (country/EU) immigration policy.

 

[Rajma]

@harms I don’t think so as it won’t be down to efforts of theirs just the EU naturally adapting to changing environment where these illegal immigrants are now being used as a tool in a hybrid war I think it gives EU pretty good excuse now in terms of PR.

 

[Cheimoon]

Also, the left in Europe isn't necessarily pro-immigration. Immigration is a progressive leftist issue, while a lot of Europe's left is more concerned with economical leftist issues. See e.g. Denmark, where the Prime Minister is a social-democrat with pretty strong views against migration.

Actually, I just found a quote on Wikipedia from her (Mette Frederiksen) that beautifully captures my point here: "For me, it is becoming increasingly clear that the price of unregulated globalisation, mass immigration and the free movement of labour is paid for by the lower classes."

So in that sense, I agree with @Rajma that the continuation and intensification of immigration issues might lead to a stronger stance against immigration from part of the European left (generally the centrist part that is closer to power), removing a key attraction of rightist populist parties.

 

[Rajma]

Also, the left in Europe isn't necessarily pro-immigration. Immigration is a progressive leftist issue, while a lot of Europe's left is more concerned with economical leftist issues. See e.g. Denmark, where the Prime Minister is a social-democrat with pretty strong views against migration.

Actually, I just found a quote on Wikipedia from her (Mette Frederiksen) that beautifully captures my point here: "For me, it is becoming increasingly clear that the price of unregulated globalisation, mass immigration and the free movement of labour is paid for by the lower classes."

So in that sense, I agree with @Rajma that the continuation and intensification of immigration issues might lead to a stronger stance against immigration from part of the European left (generally the centrist part that is closer to power), removing a key attraction of rightist populist parties.

Exactly. I think traditional labour voters in Britain voting for Brexit or Conservatives are only doing so in large due to illegal migration concerns. Take this one issue away from the agenda and I doubt Brexit or Johnson government would have happened.

 

[Simbo]

Also, the left in Europe isn't necessarily pro-immigration. Immigration is a progressive leftist issue, while a lot of Europe's left is more concerned with economical leftist issues. See e.g. Denmark, where the Prime Minister is a social-democrat with pretty strong views against migration.

Actually, I just found a quote on Wikipedia from her (Mette Frederiksen) that beautifully captures my point here: "For me, it is becoming increasingly clear that the price of unregulated globalisation, mass immigration and the free movement of labour is paid for by the lower classes."

So in that sense, I agree with @Rajma that the continuation and intensification of immigration issues might lead to a stronger stance against immigration from part of the European left (generally the centrist part that is closer to power), removing a key attraction of rightist populist parties.

That might well be the case but this is a rational point that can easily be drowned out in media spin. Is media control as 1-sided in eastern Europe as it is in the UK/US etc?

Another point I like to make on this topic is that ironically its the rightist populist parties that absolutely NEED immigration, it is critical to their very existance. They would never truely try and tackle the problem.

 

[Cheimoon]

That might well be the case but this is a rational point that can easily be drowned out in media spin. Is media control as 1-sided in eastern Europe as it is in the UK/US etc?

Another point I like to make on this topic is that ironically its the rightist populist parties that absolutely NEED immigration, it is critical to their very existance. They would never truely try and tackle the problem.

I think for both points, it's useful to keep in mind that the original point was that forcing mass migration into Europe would be destabilizing and dangerous for the EU - to which the counterpoint was that forcing the situation might make leftist parties harden their stance on immigration, creating a currently absent cross-spectrum consensus that could actually strenghten the EU and weaken the populist parties whose rhetoric undermines it.

Doesn't that respond to both your points?

 

[Simbo]

I think for both points, it's useful to keep in mind that the original point was that forcing mass migration into Europe would be destabilizing and dangerous for the EU - to which the counterpoint was that forcing the situation might make leftist parties harden their stance on immigration, creating a currently absent cross-spectrum consensus that could actually strenghten the EU and weaken the populist parties whose rhetoric undermines it.

Doesn't that respond to both your points?

Not sure I quite follow, but my personal opinion is that forcing mass migration into Europe provides enough ammunition for the propoganda machines that a hardening stance from EU's leftist parties won't make much difference. It should, but it won't.

 

[Rajma]

Seems like Russian intentions are even more sinister here, they will hope to ignite a full blown armed conflict.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[harms]

Seems like Russian intentions are even more sinister here, they will hope to ignite a full blown armed conflict.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I'm breaking my own rule of never dismissing those kind of rumours about Putin (and, by extension, Lukashenko), but sounds like a sensationalist bs to me. I'd wait for a better source at least — Latushko isn't much better in terms of trust-worthiness even though he's on the side that I obviously sympathise with.

 

[maniak]

Whatever political angle we want to use to analyze this, the EU and Poland can go feck themselves for leaving those people with a bunch of children to freeze in the middle of the woods. It pisses me off me how media reports more on what the US does in the southern border than what we do in our borders. fecking embarrassment.

 

[VorZakone]

Also, the left in Europe isn't necessarily pro-immigration. Immigration is a progressive leftist issue, while a lot of Europe's left is more concerned with economical leftist issues. See e.g. Denmark, where the Prime Minister is a social-democrat with pretty strong views against migration.

Actually, I just found a quote on Wikipedia from her (Mette Frederiksen) that beautifully captures my point here: "For me, it is becoming increasingly clear that the price of unregulated globalisation, mass immigration and the free movement of labour is paid for by the lower classes."

So in that sense, I agree with @Rajma that the continuation and intensification of immigration issues might lead to a stronger stance against immigration from part of the European left (generally the centrist part that is closer to power), removing a key attraction of rightist populist parties.

That is a good quote from Frederiksen.

 

[Sir Matt]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

More details about how Belarus is funneling the immigrants into the EU to destabilize it.

 

[Foxbatt]

Have a look at The Guardian article about how Croatian and Greek Police in unmarked uniforms are doing to the immigrants.
That guy in Belarus is a scum but he is a bogeyman for the Europeans on this.
Just read the article.

 

[The Firestarter]

Have a look at The Guardian article about how Croatian and Greek Police in unmarked uniforms are doing to the immigrants.
That guy in Belarus is a scum but he is a bogeyman for the Europeans on this.
Just read the article.

You can post the link for a change.

 

[Foxbatt]

You can post the link for a change.

I read the hard copy..

 

[harms]

Have a look at The Guardian article about how Croatian and Greek Police in unmarked uniforms are doing to the immigrants.
That guy in Belarus is a scum but he is a bogeyman for the Europeans on this.
Just read the article.

I wouldn't compare the two even though both are simply despicable.

Lukashenko had baited thousands (probably tens of thousands — it's been happening for a while, just not at this scale) immigrants by promoting this route to Europe & issuing tourist visas for them with a single goal in mind, to send them to Poland/Lithuania/Latvia in order to destabilise their domestic affairs in retaliation for European sanctions. He instigates the action while Greece/Croatia etc. react to it — even though I can't imagine how this stuff is still happening in the XXI'st century.

 

[sun_tzu]

I wouldn't compare the two even though both are simply despicable.

Lukashenko had baited thousands (probably tens of thousands — it's been happening for a while, just not at this scale) immigrants by promoting this route to Europe & issuing tourist visas for them with a single goal in mind, to send them to Poland/Lithuania/Latvia in order to destabilise their domestic affairs in retaliation for European sanctions. He instigates the action while Greece/Croatia etc. react to it — even though I can't imagine how this stuff is still happening in the XXI'st century.

coincidentally allowing putin to move a lot of troops to the Ukraine border with less scrutiny

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59288181

Genuinely wouldnt be surprised to see russia roll in chrimea style securing Donetsk and Luhansk... afterall they got away with the chrimea easily enough and I dont see any nato armies being willing to send their own tanks and troops to battle

 

[The Firestarter]

coincidentally allowing putin to move a lot of troops to the Ukraine border with less scrutiny

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59288181

Genuinely wouldnt be surprised to see russia roll in chrimea style securing Donetsk and Luhansk... afterall they got away with the chrimea easily enough and I dont see any nato armies being willing to send their own tanks and troops to battle

Of course NATO wouldn't fight for Ukraine. But they may decide to stop doing trade with Russia altogether. So the reason why it won't happen is economic, not military.

 

[harms]

coincidentally allowing putin to move a lot of troops to the Ukraine border with less scrutiny

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59288181

Genuinely wouldnt be surprised to see russia roll in chrimea style securing Donetsk and Luhansk... afterall they got away with the chrimea easily enough and I dont see any nato armies being willing to send their own tanks and troops to battle

I think that Putin would've moved for Donetsk & Lugansk long time ago if he really needed them. He enjoys having those semi-separate states on the NATO border since they allow him to fight this proxy war without technically getting involved (there are no Russian troops there... we swear... Russian military officers? those are probably enthusiasts that went there on their holiday...). Crimea is different since it had Russian fleet bases & gave control over the huge chunk of the Black Sea — plus, Crimea was kind of an unclosed gestalt for Russia since it was Russian, not Ukrainian, for centuries before Khrushchev gave it to Ukrainian SSR. There are no such gestalt for Donetsk & Lugansk — and I doubt that Russian people would be happy with the addition of another 2 war-ridden regions that will need to be rebuilt basically from the scratch with federal budget's money.

See South Ossetia & Abkhasia for similar examples on the Georgian border.

Although as I've said many times, no one can really predict what he will do next at this point. I don't think that anyone had expected him to annex Crimea.

 

[Foxbatt]

I think that Putin would've moved for Donetsk & Lugansk long time ago if he really needed them. He enjoys having those semi-separate states on the NATO border since they allow him to fight this proxy war without technically getting involved (there are no Russian troops there... we swear... Russian military officers? those are probably enthusiasts that went there on their holiday...). Crimea is different since it had Russian fleet bases & gave control over the huge chunk of the Black Sea — plus, Crimea was kind of an unclosed gestalt for Russia since it was Russian, not Ukrainian, for centuries before Khrushchev gave it to Ukrainian SSR. There are no such gestalt for Donetsk & Lugansk — and I doubt that Russian people would be happy with the addition of another 2 war-ridden regions that will need to be rebuilt basically from the scratch with federal budget's money.

See South Ossetia & Abkhasia for similar examples on the Georgian border.

Although as I've said many times, no one can really predict what he will do next at this point. I don't think that anyone had expected him to annex Crimea.

I think anyone who has a brain would know that Russia was not going to let go of Sevastopol to NATO. There was no way they would let it happen. Maybe the way they did it, no one expected but they should have known it was always going to be that way.