• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Geopolitics of it all

  • Thread starter Thread starter QV
  • Start date Start date
A bit ironic since Poland has been historically the subject of actual invasions and forced migrations.

There are legitimate refugees in the world. Right now, there are more displaced people than at any point in history. They didn’t vote to be born and live in those areas, and just telling them to emigrate is a non-starter.

Regardless, broad-brush calling them “[insert perjorative] invaders” doesn’t help the situation.
The West is a series of lifeboats bobbing around in a ocean of chaos. Like all Lifeboats, they can only hold so many people. If the seas are calm, then the number is higher, if the seas are not calm and the number is to high, the lifeboat is swamped. It's a metaphor but I think it is fairly accurate.

I think one has to look at the definition of refugee much harder and say " This man is travelling with his family and directly (or fairly directly) from a war torn place, therefore they are refuges. Individual fighting age males that have bounced through 3-4 countries from a area that may or may not be in crisis are not really meeting the definition at this point.

If we want to keep our boat afloat and keep the existing population accepting of taking refugees, then we better be very careful of who and how many we take each year.
 
And why is it wrong for people to say "No!"?
My point of contention was more about the comment that they’re not migrants/refugees, they’re an invading force.

Coming from an Islamic country doesn’t mean you are part of the regime. They hate on each other just as much, if not more, based on Shia vs Sunni (and the subsets therein). If those people have had no history of supporting the (bad) regime or extremist ideology, then there is really no difference than other migrants other than country of origin. We don’t want to be going down the path of “if you’re from Country X then you’re bad” again.

The EU nations can certainly say no snd face the consequences. If they really want to push it, leave the EU.
 
My point of contention was more about the comment that they’re not migrants/refugees, they’re an invading force.

Coming from an Islamic country doesn’t mean you are part of the regime. They hate on each other just as much, if not more, based on Shia vs Sunni (and the subsets therein). If those people have had no history of supporting the (bad) regime or extremist ideology, then there is really no difference than other migrants other than country of origin. We don’t want to be going down the path of “if you’re from Country X then you’re bad” again.

The EU nations can certainly say no snd face the consequences. If they really want to push it, leave the EU.

Good, bad or indifferent. What is wrong with just saying no? Indiscriminately.
 
My point of contention was more about the comment that they’re not migrants/refugees, they’re an invading force.

Coming from an Islamic country doesn’t mean you are part of the regime. They hate on each other just as much, if not more, based on Shia vs Sunni (and the subsets therein). If those people have had no history of supporting the (bad) regime or extremist ideology, then there is really no difference than other migrants other than country of origin. We don’t want to be going down the path of “if you’re from Country X then you’re bad” again.

The EU nations can certainly say no snd face the consequences. If they really want to push it, leave the EU.

They might not be invaders, but they can certainly create a crisis and destabilize a country that's not ready, or willing, to accept them all... viz


and...

Germany: Asylum applications rose sharply in 2023​


More than 350,000 people applied for asylum in Germany in 2023, the highest number since 2016. Opposition parties have blamed the government for not controlling what they call a "migration crisis."


"The government is not coming to grips with the migration crisis," said the deputy leader of the parliamentary party of the bloc formed by the Christian Democrats (CDU) and their Bavarian sister party Christian Social Union (CSU).

"Despite the strain on municipalities, the [coalition government] is firmly sticking by its intentions such as making it easier to obtain citizenship, thus giving ever more encouragement for further illegal migration," Andrea Lindholz of the CSU said.

Lindholz criticized that the rules facilitating deportations would not come into force until February at the earliest, and also accused the government of pursuing a "multiculti ideal" with its citizenship plans.

 
They might not be invaders, but they can certainly create a crisis and destabilize a country that's not ready, or willing, to accept them all... viz


and...

Germany: Asylum applications rose sharply in 2023​


More than 350,000 people applied for asylum in Germany in 2023, the highest number since 2016. Opposition parties have blamed the government for not controlling what they call a "migration crisis."


"The government is not coming to grips with the migration crisis," said the deputy leader of the parliamentary party of the bloc formed by the Christian Democrats (CDU) and their Bavarian sister party Christian Social Union (CSU).

"Despite the strain on municipalities, the [coalition government] is firmly sticking by its intentions such as making it easier to obtain citizenship, thus giving ever more encouragement for further illegal migration," Andrea Lindholz of the CSU said.

Lindholz criticized that the rules facilitating deportations would not come into force until February at the earliest, and also accused the government of pursuing a "multiculti ideal" with its citizenship plans.

Here’s a bit more context for the new regulation:


The question is should the EU just spread the benefits, or the issues as well? This regulation seems to be a consequence of countries like Poland, etc saying no to immigrants, forcing Germany, etc to take them. There are already countries taking the brunt of the migrants.

I also find it interesting that this regulation is getting pushback from both left and right wings of the EU spectrum.
 
Here’s a bit more context for the new regulation:


The question is should the EU just spread the benefits, or the issues as well? This regulation seems to be a consequence of countries like Poland, etc saying no to immigrants, forcing Germany, etc to take them. There are already countries taking the brunt of the migrants.

I also find it interesting that this regulation is getting pushback from both left and right wings of the EU spectrum.

Well, Poland is kind of full right now...


More than 17 million Ukrainian refugees have crossed into Poland since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022. Today, more than 950,000 Ukrainians are living in Poland, almost all of whom are women and children — an increase in population that has put pressure on Poland’s health system to expand services.

 
The EU nations can certainly say no snd face the consequences. If they really want to push it, leave the EU.
The EU is not keen on countries leaving it, hence the reason they are punishing the UK, to keep the others inline. Personally I think the EU has overstepped the practical limits of it's capabilities and should be scaled back to more of a trade treaty.
 
The EU is not keen on countries leaving it, hence the reason they are punishing the UK, to keep the others inline. Personally I think the EU has overstepped the practical limits of it's capabilities and should be scaled back to more of a trade treaty.

Like back when it all got started?

The EEC was designed to create a common market among its members through the elimination of most trade barriers and the establishment of a common external trade policy. The treaty also provided for a common agricultural policy, which was established in 1962 to protect EEC farmers from agricultural imports. The first reduction in EEC internal tariffs was implemented in January 1959, and by July 1968 all internal tariffs had been removed. Between 1958 and 1968 trade among the EEC’s members quadrupled in value.

 
It's like any bureaucracy. Once its finds itself at the limits of its authority to act, it looks for wider limits and new fields that need managing.

:cool:
 
By the right, quick march... not surprising really


EU projection shows far-right parties making big gains in European elections​


Far-right parties have made big gains at the European Parliament as the Greens took a major hit at Sunday’s European elections, according to a first projection provided by the European Union.

The estimates aggregated by the EU parliament are based on exit polls or other survey data, along with projections that may include some partial election returns

 
Welcome to the next 100 Years War. Not bad for a 2009 publication.

Looking forward to that Russian collapse and Chinese fragmentation ;)


The Next 100 Years is a 2009 speculative nonfiction book by George Friedman. In the book, Friedman attempts to predict the major geopolitical events and trends of the 21st century. Friedman also speculates in the book on changes in technology and culture that may take place during this period.

Overview​

Friedman predicts that the United States will remain the dominant global superpower throughout the 21st century and that the history of the 21st century will consist mainly of attempts by other world powers to challenge US dominance. Although mainly about the geopolitics and wars of the century, the book also makes some economic, social, and technological predictions for the 21st century.

Second Cold War​

In the 2010s, the conflict between the US and Islamic fundamentalists will die down, and a second Cold War, less extensive and shorter than the first, will take place between the United States and Russia. It will be characterized by Russian attempts to expand its sphere of influence into Central and Eastern Europe, coupled with a buildup of Russian military capabilities. During this period, Russia's military will pose a regional challenge to the United States. The United States will become a close ally to some Central and Eastern European countries, all of whom will be dedicated to resisting Russian geopolitical threats during this period. Friedman speculates in the book that the United States will probably become a close ally of some Central and Eastern European countries: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. Around 2015, a Polish-led military alliance of countries in Central and Eastern Europe will begin to form, which is referred to in the book as the "Polish Bloc."

In the 2020s, the collapse of the Russian government and the fragmentation of mainland China will leave Eurasia in general chaos. Other powers will then move in to annex or establish spheres of influence in the area, and in many cases, regional leaders will secede. In Russia, North Caucasus and other Muslim regions, as well as the Pacific Far East will become independent, Finland will annex Karelia, Romania will annex Moldova, Tibet will gain independence with help from India, Taiwan will extend its influence into mainland China, while the United States, European powers, and Japan will re-create regional spheres of influence in mainland China.

 
It’s amazing that although it is one of the few communist countries left in the world, it’s more on our side than the Russians/Chinese/Iranians/Venezuelans/Cubans.
 
It’s amazing that although it is one of the few communist countries left in the world, it’s more on our side than the Russians/Chinese/Iranians/Venezuelans/Cubans.
I think enough time's passed that they've learned ... lessons, and know what to expect from who now - at least for now.
 
So often the path from colony to emerging powerhouse has to pass through crappy authoritarianism and then communism.
 
Back
Top