Another sabotage by Russia or its allies on crucial EU infrastructure. I'm happy to see the Finns searching and stopping them, but we need to be serious about our adversary that keeps threatening to nuke major European cities off the map
Europe clings to the hope that the rules-based international order that—at this point—everyone is abandoning, can be resuscitated through hopes and prayers. It can’t. We’re back to realpolitik.
Russian boats should be subject to boarding and searching when passing by Finnish and adjacent waters; for precedent, they can cite China claiming its sovereign waters include vastly adjacent waters to its own.
Russia flirted with Turkish airspace in 2015; Ankara shot it down [1]. Zero further provocations. You can’t appease a bully by lying prostrate. Even if the bully has big guns at home. We aren’t risking nuclear war by drawing clear lines, we’re inviting it by clumsily blurring them.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_sh...
FWIW this perspective is currently known pejoratively, as "liberalism". As in "conservatives and liberals", not as in "liberty" or "liberal world order" - political labels are weird. Examples of this kind of party are the SPD (Germany), Labour (New Zealand) and the Democrats (USA).
Currently, left wing people are trying to make a big deal out of how liberals are (a) not actually left wing, but centrist at best, (b) generally incompetent (which is still preferable to the alternative most people have, mind you) and (c) enable fascism to take over, by attempting to follow the rules all the time, without updating the rules when fascists learn how to exploit them. (Hitler was given power according to the normal process, even though it should have already been obvious to everyone involved that it was a bad idea, because the most important thing is to follow the process, no matter where it leads)
Hitler’s rise was not a product of strict adherence to democratic norms. The Weimar authorities repeatedly broke with "normal process" including banning him from public speaking, suppressing Nazi media, outlawing the SA, relying on emergency decrees, and bypassing parliamentary governance. These anti-democratic measures not only failed to stop Hitler but eroded trust in democracy itself, creating the conditions for his eventual ascent.
Moreover, the KPD (the German Communist Party) played a significant role in destabilizing the Republic. They engaged in widespread political violence, targeting both Nazis and moderate leftists. They fractured anti-Nazi opposition by labelling the SPD as "social fascists" unworthy of cooperating with. The Nazi's Sturmabteilung was hardened primarily in response to KPD attacks through the Rotfrontkämpferbund (attacks that the authorities refused to prevent).
The left's infighting, combined with its own undemocratic tactics, significantly weakened any systemic resistance to fascism and helped paved the road Hitler later marched down.
No, the core of the beef between leftists and liberals is over "liberty," or something that a liberal would call liberty and a leftist would not. Namely, property rights over financial assets. Liberals see these as a kind of liberty: "you own a farm, property rights over the farm connect the labor you do in upkeep and planting to the rewards you reap at harvest." Leftists argue that this might be a nice but temporary side effect and that the core purpose of financial assets is to ensure that rich people get paid for being rich in proportion to how rich they are, thereby establishing, reinforcing, and perpetuating a class hierarchy where the people on the bottom must constantly pay to exist while the people on top constantly get paid to exist. They would tell a different story: "Bill Gates owns the farmland, you do all the work, you pay him everything he asks for, and if it's not enough he replaces you." In turn, the liberal would contend that market competition keeps this in check and the leftist would contend that ever concentrating capital interests ensure robust competition on the bottom and absent competition on the top, slowly crushing any market competition favorable to the farmer. At this point, if it hasn't happened already, the liberal will start lobbing horrific tales of leftists abusing farmers and the leftist will start lobbing horrific tales of property rights being used to abuse farmers and the conversation descends into "whose atrocities are bigger / worse / more relevant" discourse.
If you haven't seen this kind of infighting, it's not because the philosophical rift doesn't exist, it's because actual leftism has been outside the Overton window of popular discourse in the United States for the last 50-70 years. McCarthy's Red Scare was the first push, dissolution of the New Deal Coalition was the last. Class Warfare rhetoric was frowned upon by the liberal + conservative majority and kept out of polite company. Now that populism is back in fashion, leftists have been looking to change that, but they have been having less success than the populist right. Watch this space, though.
As with the last time he was elected Trump has vehemently criticised a policy of his predecessor, and then immediately adopted the same policy as his own on being elected.
He did it over bombing Syria if they used chemical weapons, and he’s doing it over Ukraine now, making it clear he intends to continue fully supporting them, while also pushing for a huge increase in military spending. Both policies he and his party were adamantly against and did everything they could to undermine while in opposition.
The uncharitable scenario is that he's waiting for the RU bribe money to land before delivering -- and no one deserves charity less than this man. Remember when he stopped the Javelin shipments to Ukraine until such time as Zelensky could deliver dirt (real or manufactured) on Biden? This could be exactly like that, though at this time he presumably wants money not dirt.
How that wasn’t blindingly obvious from the start is a question, but not one he or his supporters actually care about because they couldn’t give a fig about Ukraine. It is entirely instrumental to his personal political advantage in the moment. Being utterly opposed to support for Ukraine was politically advantageous in opposition and supporting Ukraine to the hilt is now politically advantageous in power. That’s all that matters.
Chemical weapons in Syria are an informative parallel. Obama’s commitment to bombing Syria if they used chemical weapons was the worst policy ever from opposition, but actually bombing Syria for using Chemical weapons when they did so as soon as Trump gained power was an obvious necessity.
You’re vastly overestimating the strategic capacity or care of the American voter. Game theory doesn’t fit in a TikTok video.
Mostly because Assad did use chemical weapons and Obama didn't bomb them. Arguably the fact that Obama backed down set the tone for the invasion of Crimea and the Donbas.
Until they were in power of course, and Assad mistakenly assumed the Republican position on this was coherent and actually used chemical weapons again.
Obama certainly didn't bother with as much when offing Al-Awlaki [1]. (An American who took up arms against the United States.)
This was Obama's fuck-up. He was the chief executive and commander in chief. If he couldn't hold the line, he shouldn't have drawn it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...
His supporters absolutely would give a fig about Ukraine if Trump hadn't spent years sabotaging the GOP's historical positions on hostile authoritarians.
Given what we've seen in Ukraine, I agree that Eastern European countries can likely take on Russia in conventional warfare. But that's not the only thing on the table.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/0...
That's funny. It died when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and the EU continued business as usual.
A lot of us in the US don't subscribe to the idea of "either you're with us or against us". I don't expect every single country in the world to drop everything they are doing and rush to help us invade whatever country we want to invade. I think it is ridiculous to say the EU is not with us because they don't blindly follow us everywhere.
In hindsight, it was a bad idea to invade Iraq anyway.
The EU paid its "protection tax" by implicitly or explicitly endorsing any US actions. It's what always gave legitimacy to any US military action, what gave them the sheen of righteousness. The EU didn't "just watch", they did what they were expected to do.
Going forward, if Trump's anti-NATO agenda materializes, the US will have to find a different source of legitimacy for their actions or be painted as just an aggressor on the world stage.
Probably not, but that’s a separate—if fruitful—discussion. (Better candidates: NATO bombing Yugoslavia.)
What’s not debatable is that it has changed. Given how lightfootedly Europe is playing its hand, it’s surprising it’s taken this long to get Putin at their throats, Trump at their wallets and Xi gutting their industry.
Nobody joins a defensive alliance because it's cute. To the extent a cogent geopolitical message has been delivered, between Bush and Biden, it's that the international order has two castes: nuclear-armed states and everyone else.
The UK did a similar amount to the US per capita in Iraq, even though we had less to gain and, frankly, it has punched above it's weight in practically every war going since well before the US even existed. Including Ukraine for example, where we were the first to arm them in advance of the invasion.
This comes across as american ignorance, I'm sorry to say.
Appeasement is what Europe does when an aggressor comes knocking.
“Appeasement” is such a fake lesson from WW2. Chamberlain’s mistake was not negotiating with Hitler. His mistake was that he let wishful thinking cloud his vision.
Churchill just did much better in understanding his enemy. In this particular case, with an enemy whose goal was the eradication of whole parts of the world population, the result was that negotiating made no sense. But to say this is the lesson from Munich and to apply this as a cookie cutter template to any dictator is barking mad. Even more so in the age of nuclear weapons.
Zero further provocations doesn't seem right [1] [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Russian_Air_Force_Al-Bab_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Balyun_airstrikes
It's a lovely theory but in practice you have to have a rule that says we can board any ship we feel like and that's super problematic.
Beijing has no interest in this. If anything, it has an interest in becoming one of Russia’s sole buyers.
> you have to have a rule that says we can board any ship we feel like and that's super problematic
Why? China is literally doing this right now outside its territorial waters. It’s fine. America would too, if foreign trawlers started cutting its lines. Again, if one person is playing by restrictions everyone else has already abandoned, it’s not difficult to conclude who’s the sucker at the table.
Classic American view point. Win at all costs, ignore the rules yourself but use another countries lack of adherence as an excuse to invade/bomb them.
You really think this is how we get a peaceful and civilised world order? You think this builds trust? Moral leadership? Long term reputation? Relationships?
Ridiculous. Sorry to be controversial but breaking international law should be avoided at almost any cost.
I guess one man's "sucker at the table" is another man's "gentleman who plays by the rules, and can be trusted"
No, if your point is reasonable, it still doesn’t apply when dealing with a psychopath. Who TF cares about moral superiority in the face of an existential threat?
If moral superiority is so important, let Putin lead with it.
My entire point is this is already the status quo. Nobody—other than Europe—is following the post-WWII rules anymore. There is a new set of conventions being de facto agreed to, and they will be set by the players actually at the table.
> Beijing has no interest in this.
The first cable and gas pipe sabotages using the anchor dragging method in the Baltic Sea in 2023 and 2024 were done by Chinese ships:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newnew_Polar_Bear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Peng_3
So obviously Beijing in already into this on the Russian side.
There is no way out of the Baltic Sea without crossing the territorial sea of either Sweden or Denmark. Countries have full jurisdiction in those, cutting cables on purpose is at least a criminal act, if not terrorism. There's no problem handling this, even if you're fully playing by the books.
Russia would then need to switch to ships running only to Kaliningrad, which makes it even more obvious that it's an act of war.
I just don't agree this is something worth breaking international law over.
Just like pacifism, abiding by the international law in this case will only serve to embolden the totalitarian regimes, which neither desire peace, nor obey the law.
They broke the law last time therefore it's fine for us to.
Words aren't as meaningless as you claim even at wartime.
I'm simply pointing out that words do not matter as much, willingness to do something, to respond, to defend yourself, that's what matters. I'm not ignoring the value of laws, and rules, and regulations, but they clearly are not an ironclad defense. Just like Article 5 isn't.
Plot every declaration of war since WWII. Now plot every military conflict. Nobody declares war by declaring war, we declare war by bombing.
US has Guantanamo and they don’t call them prisoners of wars (PoW). Russia has special military operations. Australia doesn’t keep their illegal immigrants in detention centers but in “administrative residences”.
So declarations of war are very much not outdated, insofar as everyone _avoids_ those terms.
One, sure, declarations of war aren’t academically outdated. By that measure neither are colonialism or chattel slavery, which are also avoided in modern speechwriting.
Two, we absolutely say we’re going to war with each other. We just don’t formally declare it. Declarations of war are obsolete, I’d be hard pressed to find anyone serious in government or international relations who claims otherwise.
UNCLOS is being ignored by China. The Geneva Conventions have been ignored by every current, former and emerging superpower, as well as several regional powers--again, without consequence. Nobody declares war. And Putin has been amending his nuclear doctrine by the hour, often with false starts.
Would I prefer these were law? Absolutely. Must I blind myself to the fact that they aren't? No.
Just because some states are violating it doesn't mean that we should throw the entire thing overboard entirely.
Sure. It's still, ultimately, a unilateraly rewriting of the terms. Something states can do in international law that individuals can't in a nation with the rule of law.
> because some states are violating it doesn't mean that we should throw the entire thing overboard entirely
Nobody is suggesting that. My point is we should be more open to such rewritings given they're commonly taking place. It doesn't make sense for Europe to treat UNCLOS as binding law when Russia, China and hell America treat is as nice-to-have guidelines.
International agreements were treated as law in the post-WWII era. That era ended some time after the fall of the Soviet Union. Slowly. Then suddenly.
They're now closer to LOIs. Some countries are realising this quickly. Others more slowly.
You have freedom but if you do a crime your right to freedom is void. Now you have right to get punished.
Straw men. The point is both have happened.
Unilaterally claiming more territorial waters and boarding ships is cool and all. Having a Russian Navy destroyer follow one of these ships and greet the boarding party would also be kinda cool.
I don't think it's as clear cut. Transit passage through straits is governed by special provisions in the UNCLOS; with a few exceptions, states can't just board vessels.
What could further complicate matters here is if infrastructure of states A and B is damaged, but a vessel leaves the sea through a strait bordering states C and D.
That's obviously only the theory, and it's unfortunately not like there is broad international consensus on matters of territoriality at sea at this point.
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...
NATO members can and should find some other pretext to stop, board, and search some of those Russian vessels. But if Russia doesn't back down and sends them with Navy escorts what then? It's worth thinking through the various escalation scenarios before acting.
The whole point of doing it with a tanker was deniability. Doing it with a Russian-flagged ship makes it overt. The anti-escalation logic applies in both direction: Russia wants to sabotage as much as possible without triggering a huge escalation, because they're not sure they can win that either (and nobody could win a nuclear exchange!)
That's not to say that nothing can be done, but that it's important to do the right thing, or we risk eroding the few hard-won rules we still have.
By attack undersea cables the ship are no longer exercising the right of innocent passage, and thus is not protected under the law of the sea.
The ship that was boarded, is registered in the Cook Islands (an associated state of New Zealand), owned and operated by a company in United Arab Emirates. And the ship's crew were Georgian and Indian.
Background: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_the_Cook...
It looks like the Cook Islands are heavily dependent on financial support from NZ government, and NZ tourists.
China retains the right to board any ship in what it considers its sovereign territory, UNCLOS be damned. A similar reading by Finland would let it legally board any Russian ship transitting "its" straits.
Funny, how all the lectures about the "rules based order" and the "rule of law" from Western necons are shown to be total lies by their own words.
Maybe a bunch of small North European countries decide to blockade Russia in the Baltic Sea, and maybe Russia doesn't consider this an act of war, because NATO seems credible enough. Suddenly the Houthi attempt to blockade the Red Sea becomes much more legitimate, and Iran will certainly take note. Maybe Panama goes shopping for allies (since the US is starting to look unpredictable), and maybe China gains the power to decide who gets to use the canal. And maybe Turkey (which is technically a NATO member but not in particularly friendly terms with the West) decides that it is allowed to control access to the Black Sea.
People like predictable rules. If the big guy says that the seas are open and they are open, you will probably support the rule, because it allows you to focus more on trade and less on protecting your interests by force. But if the seas are open, except for those the big guy doesn't like, then you may start wondering if you'll also end up on that list.
Big guys also try to enforce the rules. If piracy or an unjustified blockade threatens the freedom of navigation, naval powers will try to restore the status quo.
Reciprocity is an important norm in international politics. It makes things a bit like a mix of little kids arguing and common law. The key principle is that if the big guy and his friends area allowed to do X for their reasons, it sets the precedent that you are allowed to do what you consider the equivalent of X for your reasons. Either the big guy follows his own rules, or everyone is allowed to use their own judgment to break the rules. But if a random nobody breaks the rules, it doesn't set the precedent in the same way.
If someone violates the expectations but is not strong enough to defend his violation then expectations about behaviors of others towards him might be freely violated as well without destroying whole arrangement between conforming parties.
Interestingly, Turkey is allowed -- by the Montreux Convention -- to close the straits between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean to warships and in fact have been doing so since 2022:
>Turkey has closed off the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits to warships from any country, whether or not they border the Black Sea, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The strait closures will still allow warships through if they are returning to a home base in the Black Sea, according to reporting from Naval News. This would include Russian ships in the country’s Black Sea Fleet. However, the decision to restrict warships, a power given to Turkey by the Montreux Convention of 1936, will likely limit Russia’s ability to move ships from its other fleets to the Black Sea.
https://news.usni.org/2022/02/28/turkey-closes-bosphorus-dar...
[1] https://www.euronews.com/2024/04/22/military-spending-in-wes...
Common, everyone cried at all the demons when Trump asked Europe to reach 2% of GDP on military spending in 2018. Had we done it, we’d have DOUBLED our spending.
Russia is at 6.3%, USA at 3.4% (7x Russia’s in absolute spending), Europe at 1.3%.
Culture-wise, it’s unthinkable for Europe to come around and revive the military-industrial complex. We’re basically trying to win this war by crossing our fingers, like the French did in 1936 (the famous Congés Payés were offered in 1936, with beautiful photos of parisians going to the beach, while our German cousins were in factories manufacturing guns. Guess who won the war).
No, that's not what people had a problem with, and it's barely even what Trump said.
Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-recommended nations somehow owed payments to the US, and threatened that the US would violate the treaty if they somehow didn't keep him satisfied!
That's the stuff that was new and controversial, and for damn good reasons.
Other parties were already violating the treaty by not spending 2%. It's simple Tit for tat.
> Trump claimed (again) that the less-spending-than-recommended nations somehow owed payments to the US
The US was shouldering the cost of international security (being a hegemon) You take European stability and welfare for granted, we can't know what the world would look like without pax Americana but I'm certain it would be worse. The 'rules based international community' You couldn't even stop a genocide on the EUs front door.
> for damn good reasons
Hopefully I've demonstrated otherwise
That is not a requirement in the treaty, merely a recommendation. Stop making things up to sanewash Trump.
I'd ask you to share an official document outlining this requirement of the treaty. I will be sitting though.
I'm not sure that means what you think it means. Eisenhower wasn't being complementary when he coined that term.
He absolutely disparaged it, in fact he considered it a fundamental threat to democracy.
"Military industrial complex" isn't about maintaining a large, dominant military. It's about industry becoming so entwined with the military that they start calling the shots, and military decisions begin to be made for the benefit of corporations rather than the nation.
For example, Germany also increased its military spending, true - but from a low starting point, with an army even sometimes lacking basic supplies like dumb ammunition due to massive underfunding since the end of the cold war.
The (possible, maybe!) reintroduction of drafting will be agonizingly slow, as the military doesn't have the capacity anymore (and will lack it for years to come!) to even examine even a small percentage of each year, let alone equip and train them. There are no KWEAs (Kreiswehrersatzämter, drafting centers) anymore, and the new "Career Centers" have abysmal throughput.
We sold a very very significant chunk of our military bases and heavy equipment. Those are gone, the federal government often doesn't even own the land anymore. We have almost no working bunkers anymore, both military and public. Etc, etc.
Those are things which we would have to start to change immediately, as it takes ages until we see results. We do sorta, but on a tiny scale - it's not the massive investment you would expect for a country readying itself for conflict.
German politics / state departments are, IMO, in no way readying the public for the real prospect of military conflict. Pistorius, the German defence minister, basically screams into the void. Yes, many agree in talk, but the walk is quite underwhelming.
The defence ministry says we have to be ready for war until 2029. Most projects which are started now will, based on information by the same ministry, never ever be finished until before the 2030s. And yet, there is no hurry visible. We still have time.
So everything you say seems to fit to me.
We're more realistic. We hope it will never happen. But we fear it might. Strategic nuclear bombardment is something that should be feared, not pooh-poohed.
For me it just makes zero sense to lose much sleep about it, except for voting I can't do nothing about it
Some people, especially conservatives, have loved this narrative for forever: The rules-based order is soft, weak, wishy-washy, ineffectual fantasy; and tough, hard, reality is 'realpolitik'. And everyone knows 'tough' beats 'weak'.
IMHO it rationalizes emotional drives we all have for aggression and, feeling threatened and scared, for anger; and it serves the anti-liberal social/political agenda (because somehow a rules-based order, or any mass, peaceful, beneficial cooperation by humans, is now 'liberal' fantasy). But that pisses me off because it distracts and undermines people doing the real work. It's a person who, while we're under attack, freaks out, satisfies those emotional drives, and disrupts the team with verbal hand grenades. It's lazy thinking, IMHO, leaving the hard work of solving the problem - and now servicing someone's emotional needs and cleaning up their mess - to others, who must have the courage to be calm under fire and the courage to do right and find success.
That narrative also does what Putin wants more than anything, the destruction of the rules-based order: A world based on democracy, human rights, and associated international rules makes it impossible for Putin to carry out his imperial desires. The democratic, human-rights-based countries are powerful, unified, prosperous - Putin can't hope to compete. So he's destroying that order without firing a shot at its power base, because he has found many inside those countries to help him, many unwittingly.
The rules-based order isn't dead (as the narrative has declared since its birth). It's not wishy-washy fantasy, it was created by who knew 'realpolitik' and warfare far better than anyone living ever will, unless we are very unlucky; your 'realpolitik' fantasy is the wishy-washy and ignorant side. The rules-based order is not weak or ineffectual; 'realpolitik' is weak and ineffectual; it can't achieve anything; it destroys freedom, lives, and prosperity at massive scales; war, it's outcome, is the worst scourage of humanity. The founders of the rules-based order created it in part because, after WWII, they thought another war with then-current technology could destroy civilization - that was the technology of the 1940s. The rules-based order has been arguably the most powerful force ever in international relations, creating undreamt-of freedom, prosperity, and peace.
It was handed to us on a plate; you had to do nothing to build it, to create this incredible world out of the literal ashes of incredible destruction, hate, and violence - perhaps that's the problem, why some have a fantasy that they want to burn everything and return to living in ashes.
It also accurately renders the actions of the U.S., Russia and China since the fall of the Soviet Union. I would love to move towards a rules-based world order. But the first step in doing so is admitting it isn't the status quo.
But at the same time, no institution, law, or legal system is 100%. The USLRBIO is overall extremely effective - almost no international wars (most have been civil wars), and the recent past being the most peaceful in (millennia?). It's an incredible feat of humanity and international affairs, and freedom exploded across the world, though since has retreated somewhat.
Also, beyond a doubt, military power is a necessary part of it. The reason Russia is violating it now in Ukraine is because others have not demonstrated convincingly that they will supply Ukraine with whatever is needed as long as it's needed (quite affordable given the relative size of economies of Ukraine's allies and Russia). If that was clear, Russia would have no choice.
I appreciate that the Finns have the balls to confront the Russians while the rest of Europe just doesn't do much, or let themselves be held hostage by Orban and Fico.
"How dare you vote for a leader who doesn't hate Russia?! Don't you care about defending democracy? You have to vote for the leaders we tell you to!"
Nothing makes the West happier than the suffering of Ukrainians, because they can use it to market the war to a populace who has absolutely no idea why it happened, or why it's still happening.
Everything else Russia could do is too much of an escalation. They could fire a missile at a Polish base if they can connect it to attacks launched on Russia's soil, but that's an open attack against NATO, and even though NATO wouldn't respond with anything other than thoughts and prayers, the funding tap would open up fully again due to the propaganda value. That's crazy when Trump is coming in, and there could possibly be a big swing in US administration support for Ukraine. No chance after that. Trump doesn't want to look submissive to Putin, especially after watching Biden be emasculated by Bibi. It's better to have Trump wanting to show that he's not submissive to Zelensky (as if Zelensky could stop this train.)
The best target would have been Americans in Ukraine, which is why after the demonstration of the fact that Russia has missiles that can't be stopped and can reach all of Europe, the US immediately closed its embassy and ran. We'll support Ukrainian attacks with satellite targeting now, we're not worried about Russia firing unstoppable missiles into space.
What's left? Immiseration of European citizens to soften their support. What ability does Russia have to do that? They can sabotage cables. The West blew up Nordstream, it's silly to play superior. Nordstream was also* crucial European infrastructure, and its destruction has made the daily lives of Europeans measurably worse.
> we need to be serious about our adversary that keeps threatening to nuke major European cities off the map
What does this even mean? There's nothing anyone can do about it. Making a serious face won't stop a missile. The only thing protecting European cities is Russian rationality.
If that doesn’t work, and unfortunately I’m not confident that it will work, then it becomes an open confrontation between us, EU citizens who don’t care one bit about Ukraine and who certainly aren’t willing to die for it, and those EU citizens that are willing to risk conventional and nuclear war with Russia over the likes of Pokrovsk or Kurachove.
Which is to say, don’t assume that you people form the uncontested majority here in the EU, just look at the Slovak prime-minister or at the Romanian pro-peace presidential candidate who’s had his election victory stolen from under him (I’m Romanian myself)