That’s true, but the other bloc was still run by a man called Stalin who himself was not very cautious when handling his opponents (and also collaborated with the Nazis when he deemed it beneficial for himself). For a political opponent, it might not be so important what political ideology locks him up in a prison camp.

My point: at that time, you’d have a hard time looking for someone that fulfilled our ideals from today.

Thanks for your effort!

The way I see it, most of these conflicts can be boiled down to the Communist bloc trying to establish Communist rule while the Western bloc tried to maintain the previous, non-Communist rule. In those cases, I’d say that both sides equally fought a proxy war to achieve their own respective goal.

Take the Greece Civil War for example. You say it is on the UK and the US. For helping the existing government fight a Communist uprising, which itself was supported by the Communist bloc? I’d say it is a perfect example of both blocs supporting their respective side. Hence, I’d count it on both. Both blocs were in a global struggle to increase their respective sphere of influence.

You say the Iran crisis of 1946 is on the USSR. I’d instead also attribute that to both, as it is part of that larger struggle for power between the two blocs. As in Greece, one bloc supported the faction trying to spread Communism, one bloc supported the side trying to uphold the current rule.

Russia was using proxy wars?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars

Here is a list of (also) Cold War-era proxy Wars. You’ll find the Soviet Union in quite a lot of them and I’m not so sure if they overwhelmingly can be accurately subsumed to “Americans invaded and Soviets only helped to fight back”…

Ich sehe in Ruttes heuchlerischem Honig und Trumps Maul vor allem den Versuch, einen sehr/zu mächtigen Menschen mit dem labilen Temperament eines Kindergärtlers und offenbar auch dessen geistigem Horizont, zumindest kurzfristig in der Allianz zu halten.

Das steht in meinen Augen so lange nicht im Widerspruch zu den erwähnten Abnabelungsbemühungen, wie diese dennoch unbeirrt weiterverfolgt werden. Denn diese werden Zeit benötigen und für die Zwischenzeit werden wir akut noch immer auf den Schutz der Amerikaner angewiesen sein. Ob’s funktioniert…

Deshalb: die deutsche post WWII Gesellschaft hat aus gutem Grund dem Militär misstraut. Weil es sie und alle drumherum zweimal in den Abgrund geführt hat (und wenn man genau schaut, mit aufregend ähnlichen Argumenten).

Ja und nein. Ja, weil du natürlich vollkommen Recht hast, dass es aus sehr guten Gründen ein immenses Unbehagen bei uns gibt, weil wir uns zweimal derart mit militärischer Macht Schuld aufgeladen haben. Nein, weil wir diesen Blick rein aus der Perspektive des ehemaligen Aggressors werfen, der dem Trugschluss erliegt: ‘Bin ich nicht aggressiv, gibt es keinen Krieg’. Ich nenne es mal etwas flapsig ‘Perspektive eines klassischen Täters’. Krieg gab es in der Vergangenheit, weil wir ihn losgetreten haben. Entsprechend ist die Sichtweise bei anderen Ländern wie Polen oder Estland, aber auch bspw. Frankreich eine ganz andere: die haben diese Kriege nämlich als Opfer erlebt und schon dort gelernt, welche Bedrohung von einem Aggressor ausgehen kann. Diese Erfahrung fehlt bei uns, denn wir waren die letzte Zeit immer der Aggressor.

Weiterhin waren wir natürlich auch nach dem 2.Weltkrieg entsprechend aufgerüstet, nur eben unter der Führung der jeweiligen Großmacht. In der Bundesrepublik war man in der etwas widersprüchlichen Situation, dass man einerseits fest und sicher eingebettet in die militärische Verteidigung der NATO inkl amerikanischem nuklearen Schirm lag, gleichzeitig aber sich damit nicht selber die Hände schmutzig machen musste. Wir hatten das Thema Verteidigung/Militär outgesourced. Und letztlich haben wir das bis heute. Wir sind bis heute abhängig von einem Land, das jetzt von diesem Typen regiert wird und eigentlich selbst dem letzten Transatlantiker klar vor Augen führen müsste, dass auf diesen “Partner” keinerlei Verlass ist.

Wir müssen uns nach Jahrzehnten der Abhängigkeit, in die wir uns nach dem 2. Weltkrieg nur zu gerne geflüchtet haben, heute tatsächlich wieder ehrlich machen, auch bei diesem unangenehmen Thema. Das bedeutet: ein aktuelles, passendes Verhältnis zum Militär zu entwickeln, das weder ins aggressiv-expansive der Vergangenheit abdriftet, noch die Augen vor der extrem bedrohlichen militärischen Lage auf der Welt und insb. unserem Kontinent verschließt. Wir müssen unsere Gesellschaft, unsere Art miteinander zu leben, vor eben solchen aggressiven Kräften wie ein Trump oder ein Putin verteidigen können. Das geht, ohne dass Deutschland gleich wieder in den Stechschritt zurückfällt.

I wonder how a landlocked country not bordering Russia will get the gas onto its territory… /s

Agreed. But while an attack on Britain always poses the risk of escalating onto a nuclear level and hence is very ‘unattractive’, an attack on Estonia could be contained. Say they took Tallinn within 48 hours. Button? I don’t think so and nor do they.

I’d argue the deterring effect of nuclear deterrent can only properly unfold if the opposing side has no way of telling its boundaries. Is it London? Berlin? Tallinn? Narva? Only then the risk is too high for an aggressor to actually attack.

Well, giving Russia the impression of being able to have a limited and controllable conflict, as they thought they could have in Ukraine, is precisely what could entice them to start the conflict, as happened in Ukraine.

What stops Russia from waging a conflict is the credibly conveyed risk of uncontrollable escalation. Is this something either Britain or France can currently project with their nukes?

A very nice clip though! With a lot of bitter truths…

We don’t want to but we must if he forces pir hand that’s how we make sure he can’t

I agree. But it is primarily a question of convincing the other side to actually do it, not only for the own mainland but for any area of any Eastern European NATO country bordering Russia.

For their benefit, not for the benefit of Europe.

We got them strat nukes we got them too.

Are you willing to use them over some “random city in Estonia”? That’s what it boils down to.

‘Making me pay for the consequences of my own actions?? What kind of monster are you!??’

Yea, you just made that up.

I didn’t. It is even linked in the article you posted (San Remo Manual). They are allowed to board and inspect. They aren’t allowed to detain the ship if it doesn’t carry prohibited goods and they aren’t allowed to do it in international waters. Which is why the question of where they boarded is important.

CNN and Euronews both confirm that the British ship’s transponder was in international waters close to Egypt

Thanks!

e: do you have specific links? The two articles I found on CNN and Euronews only cite FFC themselves when stating that the ship was boarded in international waters. I’m not saying it didn’t happen that way, I’d just like a more independent confirmation of the situation.

They were “detained” after they were kidnapped by the army and forced into an Israeli port from international waters.

Genuine question: is there any impartial/independent confirmation about the ship being boarded in international waters? Israel is exercising a naval blockade of Gaza in line with the war between the two parties and based on prize law is actually allowed to board and inspect all ships heading to Gaza.

Claiming they were only “detained after refusing to sign papers” is like claiming the hostages of Oct. 7 only became hostages when they were in Gaza.

I’m not the one drawing comparisons between these people and the hostages of Oct. 7. And frankly, it is a very very stupid comparison to make. These people can sit in a plane home the moment they sign a paper. Hassan doesn’t want to sign the papers, hence will be brought before a judge this week and then will sit in a plane home. The hostages of Hamas would love to be able to do either of that. But they are neither offered anything to sign nor are they brought before a judge. Even someone filled with blind hatred for Israel should be able to make that distinction.

In Germany, the Hauptgericht has recently ruled that organised boycott campaigns against Israel are unconstitutional

Which “Hauptgericht” are you talking about? The only recent major court ruling I can think of ad hoc is the one of the Federal Administrative Court [Bundesverwaltungsgericht] in March that said that it didn’t have jurisdiction in the question BDS wanted a ruling on. Instead, they were referred to the Federal Constitutional Court [Bundesverfassungsgericht]. Can you please link a source?

…especially since she was only detained after refusing to sign papers. I bet, those hostages from October 7 would have loved to have that choice…

But hey, this trip mainly exists to be exploited in terms of propaganda. Both ways, btw. One sides wants to have “a huge scandal”, one side wants to show how “proper and exemplary” the situation is handled. I’m sure both sides are getting their fair share out of it and this article is a part of the “huge scandal” fraction. In the end, nothing will change, as always; the conflict will carry on, as always; and the hatred for the other side will live on, as always.

F*** off from Crimea and the other occupied territories in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, also leave Belarus and we might think about it.

Well I guess we won’t agree.

If you don’t want to pull up a German flag in front of your house or wherever, that’s totally fine with me and I can understand why you wouldn’t want to.

But to universally apply a label to whoever does something you don’t want to and especially this label (far right) is sweeping judgement and simplifying the world into black and white. And I think we don’t need any more of that today.

But that’s just my opinion.

if you feel the need to setup a flagpole in front of your house you want to make a (political) statement.

And that statement can only be a far right one?

Honestly, when I pass a place that has a German flag on a flag pole in front of the house, I don’t assume it is a far right person living there. I don’t know where you live but maybe in certain regions, flag poles are a bit more common than in others and hence, more German flags can be seen there.