EU now fears US interference in European elections
eunews.it
eunews.it
I think the real difference now, isn't so much that the US is applying more pressure on european politics, but that it's politics is so much further away from most european countries than even five years ago.
The importance of trading blocks (as in Obama's example) is a pretty standard view. The support for antidemocratic strongmen (with Vance's support of Orban) is a lot less, even now.
Tbh, if that always plays out like it did in this case I'm all for US interference in EU elections ;)
As an European citizen, the whole Brexit thing was rather obviously fueled by a massive state-sponsored disinformation campaign aimed at destabilizing the UK in particular and the EU in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
No wonder that anyone not aligned with said state actors would voice concerns about the whole sad state of affairs.
It's a whole concerted effort by many figures in the US political landscape (in this I include moneyed elites) to tear down democratic pillars of European countries.
The USA already had massive issues with corporate power in politics, the Trump admin just made the merge of state and corporate interests even deeper and more overt. The pressure has only been building up the past 10 years, the Biden years were a short respite of a movement ongoing for longer.
Unfortunately we will only see how this ship continues to sail after the US's midterms, it will be the defining moment to see if American society can find ways to right the ship or if it's going to be cement the plunge into the abyss...
this is a ludicrous argument in general. having people, even in power, give their opinion like musk or obama is not "interference"
stop trying censoring opinions you don't like.
if it's through funding or other way of intereferece like ngo, just ban it yes
That’s a hell of a difference to ‘you’ll be at the back of the queue’ - which was a stated fact.
And no, the real difference now is that the USA oligarchs are activity trying to get far right parties in power.
No,the difference is not in mere political misalignments.
You have both US governments and US oligarchs openly pushing and directly promoting fascist and extremist political parties, while at the same time threatening with annexation and military interventions.
I think the first part of this is political alignment right? What are "fascist and extremist political parties" is not politics with a very different alignment?
I think your second point is a really good one though, the Barack Obama and J D Vance examples are both soft power usage. But in the case of Vance, it comes alongside a state using military force to bully its way through issues, that's a very significant context difference I didn't really acknowledge earlier.
No, no it's not a mere misalignment. Opposing fascism supported on dehumanizing policies such as racial supremacy is not a mere difference in opinion, as is pushes to invade and annex other countries.
WW2 wasn't fought because people happened to disagree. The problem with Nazi Germany and imperial Japan was not a whimsical difference of opinion. Let's not pretend that the US is any different.
I'm not sure, I'd say two things:
- I think "mere difference of opinion" suggests disagreements can't be on serious issues, as if there's something trivial about "x things racism is acceptable a y doesn't". I don't know that I'd agree? Differences in opinion can be on major issues and are important. - Pushing to invade and annex countries is a real thing, which I said in my comment above, I don't know that interferences like Vance in Hungary are pushing to invade countries though? Other things the US doss might be, but I'm not sure it comes into play here?
Invading Greenland, annexing Canada, and helping Russia invade half a dozen neighboring nations while waging economic war on Europe in the form of tariffs is far from mere "differences of opinion".
It seems pretty obvious that every great power attempts to influence other states. The more interesting question is: when is this acceptable? To what degree?
Is a leader commenting on an election fine, but actually committing funds toward NGOs too much? Is it completely acceptable for certain political ideologies but not for others, i.e., it’s okay for me to interfere with you, but not for you to interfere with me. Is it acceptable against adversaries but not amongst allies?
(This last one is probably the real question RE: the US and EU.)
It’s a complex geopolitical question. And no matter which answer you give, there will be examples that make you uncomfortable and willing to break your own rule.
From a propaganda perspective, things are probably more complicated. I imagine some European democracies are more easily influenced than others. And when the EU itself is on an authoritarian bender, it's hard to see how foreign meddling could make things much worse.
More transparency into party funding might be a good place to start. That's something that seems pretty vague at least here in BE. More direct representation would also be pretty sweet, but that might be asking for too much...
Hungarians voted Orbán in, but they also voted him out even with Vance influence.
Having said that, it is frustratingly amusing seeing the US going overt with its extra-territorial electoral interference with their recent history of being incredibly sensitive and defensive about other countries attempts at influencing US elections.
That was always the play. You say the things you would do if you were in your political opponents shoes, you talk about how bad it is, how horrible and wrong. And then, if you can manage to get enough political or monied support, you do the thing you said they were doing! After all, they did the thing first, right? It's just fair play, you say.
There was a good couple of months of mainstream media even touting that they're a threat to the left/progressive/less-conservative party currently in power who won the last election in no uncertain terms (maybe possibly a landslide...?).
It's hard to get a real gauge on it, but there's a very vocal minority that has been emboldened by Trump's anti-immigration, easy answers, point at 'other' as the cause of all the problems plaguing society rhetoric and actions, such that the 'more conservative' are at least getting more airtime, which makes it seem as if they're a "growing base". I know some people who have started talking a bit more openly in this direction.
The only real way to judge is an actual election.
The USA is supporting the same parties that they had to fight in WWII. I would think that repeating the same mistakes from the past and expecting different results is not a sane approach to politics.
Do you claim that those didn't happen, were exaggerated or invented out of thin air from the media to brainwash the hoi polloi?
What's really interesting regarding this massive disinformation and subversion propaganda campaign targeting migrants and minorities is that the same state actors dump industrial levels of anti-LGBT propaganda in their anti-minority barrage and then when you are faced with a radicalized individual succumbing to that propaganda, all you are capable of seeing is yet again how these minorities are the problem.
While barely even noticing how you are being played.
It's also funny how, even when both attacker and victims are minorities, these events are always spun as how minorities were the attackers. Perhaps that alone should make you pause.
I am not sure you understand how this works. If you are bombarded with a barrage of fear-mongering content then overtime you are conditioned to interpret even very mundane and innocuous events as being danger signals. Such as LGBT individuals being a threat when going to the toilet or the mere existence of immigrants from specific parts of the world being a threat to your neighborhood's pets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right_pipeline
> It must be that they're brainwashed by conservative media?
It amazes me how you somehow believe in imaginary threats posed by, say, the presence of minorities, but yet you fail to understand that yes there is indeed a massive propaganda effort to radicalize you and people like you.
And this threat doesn't necessarily come from "conservative" media. For decades you have state actors deeply invested in destabilizing your society and causing civil unrest to the point they overtly state their intentions and strategy in the open. Furthermore, these same state actors are also directly engaged in subversive campaigns such as fueling mass migration flows in the Mediterranean
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35706238
But oddly enough that doesn't register as a concern.