• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We should beware "Russia"’s links with Europe’s right

...

  • YES

    Votes: 7 70.0%
  • NO

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .

Litwin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
33,607
Reaction score
5,193
Location
GDL/Sweden
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
can European fascists get under under Putin´s Ozero gang leadership and make European grey - RED again ?


ce25f112906650d94b00a1910f076a0c.jpg

Marine-Le-Pen-Putin-783420.jpg


"It sounds like a chapter from a cheesy spy novel: far-right European party, in financial trouble, borrows a big sum of cash from a hawkish Russian president. His goal? To undermine the European Union and to consolidate ties between Moscow and the future possible leader of pro-Kremlin France.

In fact, that’s exactly what’s just happened. In Paris the Front National (FN), founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen, has confirmed taking Russian money. The First Czech Russian bank in Moscow has lent the party a whopping 9.4m Euros (£7.4m). Separately Le Pen has revealed he’s borrowed another 2m Euros (£1.6m) from a mysterious company based in Cyprus.

The first loan is logical enough. The FN’s leader, Marine Le Pen, makes no secret of her admiration for Putin; her party has links to senior Kremlin figures including Dmitry Rogozin, now Russia’s deputy prime minister, who in 2005 ran an anti-immigrant campaign under the slogan “Clean Up Moscow’s Trash”. Le Pen defended her decision to take the Kremlin money, complaining that she had been refused her access to capital: “What is scandalous here is that the French banks are not lending.” She also denied reports by the news website Mediapart, which broke the story, that the €9.4m was merely the first instalment of a bigger €40m loan.

The Russian money will fuel Marine Le Pen’s run for the French presidency in two years’ time. Nobody expects her to win, but the FN topped the polls in May’s European elections, winning an unprecedented 25% of the vote; Le Pen’s 25 new MEPs already form a pro-Russian bloc inside the European parliament.

In part, the Moscow loan can be understood as an act of minor and demonstrative revenge. It follows President François Hollande’s decision to postpone the delivery to Moscow of the first of two Mistral helicopter carriers, in a deal worth €1.2bn. His U-turn follows considerable western pressure, in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its ongoing covert invasion of eastern Ukraine.

But there is also a more profound and sinister aspect to the Moscow cheque. Since at least 2009 Russia has actively cultivated links with the far right in eastern Europe. It has established ties with Hungary’s Jobbik, Slovakia’s far-right People’s party and Bulgaria’s nationalist, anti-EU Attack movement. Here, political elites have become increasingly sympathetic to pro-Putin views.

According to Political Capital, a Budapest-based research institute which first observed this trend, the Kremlin has recently been wooing the far-right in western Europe as well. In a report in March it argued that Russian influence in the affairs of the far right is now a “phenomenon seen all over Europe”. Moscow’s goal is to promote its economic and political interests – and in particular to ensure the EU remains heavily dependent on Russian gas.

In Soviet times the KGB used “active measures” to sponsor front organisations in the west including pro-Moscow communist parties. The Kremlin didn’t invent Europe’s far-right parties. But in an analogous way Moscow is now lending them support, political and financial, thereby boosting European neo-fascism."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu

"Ivan Ilyin, Putin’s Philosopher of Russian Fascism

European civilization had been sentenced to death, but “so long as Mussolini is leading Italy and Hitler is leading Germany, European culture has a stay of execution.” Nazis embodied a “Spirit” (Dukh) that Russians must share.

According to Ilyin, Nazis were right to boycott Jewish businesses and blame Jews as a collectivity for the evils that had befallen Germany. Above all, Ilyin wanted to persuade Russians and other Europeans that Hitler was right to treat Jews as agents of Bolshevism. This “Judeobolshevik” idea, as Ilyin understood, was the ideological connection between the Whites and the Nazis"
Ivan Ilyin, Putin?s Philosopher of Russian Fascism | by Timothy Snyder | NYR Daily | The New York Review of Books
 
Russophobia
 
*snip for brevity*
I think we may just have to come to terms with the idea that nations and organizations will always want to influence elections both near and far from them, if they can conceive of a potential benefit.
 
odd that the left now wants to fight russia, after failing to do so during the soviet era.
 
odd that the left now wants to fight russia, after failing to do so during the soviet era.

whats about the rightists in the congress , cia, fbi , etc.? they dont want to fight OZERO GANG?
 
can European fascists get under under Putin´s Ozero gang leadership and make European grey - RED again ?


ce25f112906650d94b00a1910f076a0c.jpg

Marine-Le-Pen-Putin-783420.jpg


"It sounds like a chapter from a cheesy spy novel: far-right European party, in financial trouble, borrows a big sum of cash from a hawkish Russian president. His goal? To undermine the European Union and to consolidate ties between Moscow and the future possible leader of pro-Kremlin France.

In fact, that’s exactly what’s just happened. In Paris the Front National (FN), founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen, has confirmed taking Russian money. The First Czech Russian bank in Moscow has lent the party a whopping 9.4m Euros (£7.4m). Separately Le Pen has revealed he’s borrowed another 2m Euros (£1.6m) from a mysterious company based in Cyprus.

The first loan is logical enough. The FN’s leader, Marine Le Pen, makes no secret of her admiration for Putin; her party has links to senior Kremlin figures including Dmitry Rogozin, now Russia’s deputy prime minister, who in 2005 ran an anti-immigrant campaign under the slogan “Clean Up Moscow’s Trash”. Le Pen defended her decision to take the Kremlin money, complaining that she had been refused her access to capital: “What is scandalous here is that the French banks are not lending.” She also denied reports by the news website Mediapart, which broke the story, that the €9.4m was merely the first instalment of a bigger €40m loan.

The Russian money will fuel Marine Le Pen’s run for the French presidency in two years’ time. Nobody expects her to win, but the FN topped the polls in May’s European elections, winning an unprecedented 25% of the vote; Le Pen’s 25 new MEPs already form a pro-Russian bloc inside the European parliament.

In part, the Moscow loan can be understood as an act of minor and demonstrative revenge. It follows President François Hollande’s decision to postpone the delivery to Moscow of the first of two Mistral helicopter carriers, in a deal worth €1.2bn. His U-turn follows considerable western pressure, in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its ongoing covert invasion of eastern Ukraine.

But there is also a more profound and sinister aspect to the Moscow cheque. Since at least 2009 Russia has actively cultivated links with the far right in eastern Europe. It has established ties with Hungary’s Jobbik, Slovakia’s far-right People’s party and Bulgaria’s nationalist, anti-EU Attack movement. Here, political elites have become increasingly sympathetic to pro-Putin views.

According to Political Capital, a Budapest-based research institute which first observed this trend, the Kremlin has recently been wooing the far-right in western Europe as well. In a report in March it argued that Russian influence in the affairs of the far right is now a “phenomenon seen all over Europe”. Moscow’s goal is to promote its economic and political interests – and in particular to ensure the EU remains heavily dependent on Russian gas.

In Soviet times the KGB used “active measures” to sponsor front organisations in the west including pro-Moscow communist parties. The Kremlin didn’t invent Europe’s far-right parties. But in an analogous way Moscow is now lending them support, political and financial, thereby boosting European neo-fascism."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu

"Ivan Ilyin, Putin’s Philosopher of Russian Fascism

European civilization had been sentenced to death, but “so long as Mussolini is leading Italy and Hitler is leading Germany, European culture has a stay of execution.” Nazis embodied a “Spirit” (Dukh) that Russians must share.

According to Ilyin, Nazis were right to boycott Jewish businesses and blame Jews as a collectivity for the evils that had befallen Germany. Above all, Ilyin wanted to persuade Russians and other Europeans that Hitler was right to treat Jews as agents of Bolshevism. This “Judeobolshevik” idea, as Ilyin understood, was the ideological connection between the Whites and the Nazis"
Ivan Ilyin, Putin?s Philosopher of Russian*Fascism | by Timothy Snyder | NYR Daily | The New York Review of Books

They forgot Turkey, which is the main helper of Russian infiltration of NATO.
 
They forgot Turkey, which is the main helper of Russian infiltration of NATO.

dont you think that Turkey can not be Muscovy´s friend for long?

Leaders open TANAP pipeline carrying gas from Azerbaijan to Europe
Hürriyet Daily News...

1 day ago - Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Azerbaijani President İlham Aliyev inaugurated the Trans Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline ...
 
odd that the left now wants to fight russia, after failing to do so during the soviet era.

Odd that you think that. Your side is the one that now likes Putin and any other murderous dictator you can find. Americans do not admire those scumbags.
 
Russia and Turkey are absolutely working together to conquer Europe. Common sense.

well, i know the history well , these 2 have always been the biggest antagonists in euroasia . its just matter of time when they begin to kill each other again , lets say in Karabakh or in Crimea
 
odd that the left now wants to fight russia, after failing to do so during the soviet era.

With any hope, Italy's Elections will mark the beginning of the end of the EU as a political entity. A contiguous group of EU sceptic countries
now runs the length of Europe from the Balltic to the Mediterranean. it probably will go back to being nothing more than a free trade
organization. Hopefully the "European Project" of forming a United States of Europe is dead.
 
With any hope, Italy's Elections will mark the beginning of the end of the EU as a political entity. A contiguous group of EU sceptic countries
now runs the length of Europe from the Balltic to the Mediterranean. it probably will go back to being nothing more than a free trade
organization. Hopefully the "European Project" of forming a United States of Europe is dead.

BS, without EU , Italy special its south is a part of MENA .so dream on OLGINO

140811_r25325.png
 
To me, this strategy by Russia to support far-right parties in a way mirrors the support the Soviet Union provided during the cold war to rebel groups that fueled so many civil wars. Russia I believe have sponsored 3 uprisings since the collapse of the Soviet Union, South Ossetia, Donbass and Bosnia, I would argue this financial support to far right parties are a branch of their typical pro Russia civil war/rebel support campaign. Certainly it should be regarded with much caution and laws should be in place to protect a country's political process from foreign influence.
 
To me, this strategy by Russia to support far-right parties in a way mirrors the support the Soviet Union provided during the cold war to rebel groups that fueled so many civil wars. Russia I believe have sponsored 3 uprisings since the collapse of the Soviet Union, South Ossetia, Donbass and Bosnia, I would argue this financial support to far right parties are a branch of their typical pro Russia civil war/rebel support campaign. Certainly it should be regarded with much caution and laws should be in place to protect a country's political process from foreign influence.

great post but still :
1) not sponsored by direct occupied
3) not 3, but much more , they have occupied Azerbaijan (Korobakh) , Moldova, Georgia Abkhazia, Ukraine (Crimea ). you know Roosevelt administration was heavy infaceted by koba´s spies and his useful idiots. which led to Koba´s commie successful take over China and Yugoslavia operations . so think think about effects which we are gonna have with trump´s friendly to putler administration


The Russians Are Coming: Georgia's Creeping Occupation

 
Last edited:
by the way Putler do the same in USA

"Europe's Far-Right Enjoys Backing from Russia's Putin
VIENNA — While U.S. intelligence agencies investigate claims that Russia secretly hacked emails to help tip last year’s elections in favor of Donald Trump, Russia’s push to bolster far-right populist politicians in Europe has been far more blatant.

Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is working to empower Europe’s far-right and Eurosceptic parties with offers of cooperation, loans, political cover and propaganda. Such love has not gone unrequited: European populists are answering back with fulsome praise for Russia, its foreign policy and its strongman leader.The love affair comes as euroskeptic candidates prepare to face mainstream politicians in crucial elections looming on the horizon: Dutch elections next month, French elections in spring, German elections sometime in autumn and Italian elections at a still undetermined date."
20140419_EUD000_0.jpg

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/europe-s-far-right-enjoys-backing-russia-s-putin-n718926
 
DNR-flag-carried-by-German-neo-Nazies-in-Heidenau.jpg


"DNR" flag carried in the march by German neo-Nazies in Heidenau
 
odd that the left now wants to fight russia, after failing to do so during the soviet era.

This is a shallow misconception that stems from Republican political rhetoric. Aside from the global issues that all U.S. Presidents rushed to "defend" against communism, we can just look at Vietnam as the stand-out example:

1) After Eisenhower committed us to Vietnam, it was Kennedy (January 1961 – November 1963) who doubled down.

- 1961: He immediately approved an additional $42 million to the annual budget to expand the South Vietnamese Army and he increased Eisenhower's MAAG number by 100 while introducing 400 special forces troops. By the end of 1961, Kennedy had doubled Eisenhower's number of 1500 to 3,205 American "advisers" who were in combat.

- 1962: By the end, there were more than 9,000 American troops under various disguises, though it was widely known (outside of the American public) that Kennedy was clearly violating the Geneva Accords to fight communism.

- 1963: Though the evidence shows that Kennedy was not aware, Johnson was absolutely aware of the assassination plan to get rid of Diem. By the time Kennedy was assassinated twenty days later, the number of American troops in Southeast Asia hovered around 16,300.

At this point, Kennedy, like Eisenhower, was determined to keep this war limited. Of course, then Johnson (November 1963 – January 1969) blew the door wide the hell open.

- 1963-1965: He transitioned what was limited into an open-ended commitment. In NSAM 288 (1964), Johnson elevated the Adviser numbers from 16,300 to 23,300 and expanded economic aid by $50 million.

- 1965: Johnson used the Tonken issue to secure congressional resolution authorizing him to take "all necessary measures to repel any armed attacks against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." This was used to retaliate when a U.S. Army barracks was attacked in February 1965. Johnson initiated sustained and exponential bombing attacks on the North until May. In July he ordered the immediate deployment of 50,000 troops to South Vietnam.

- 1967: By the end of the year there were 485,000 American troops in Vietnam.


Now, almost half a million American troops in Vietnam seems like a lot when we compare them to Eisenhower's 1500, no? Keep in mind, that Jonson, like Kennedy, was deceiving the American public to fight communism as Republicans paraded around the notion that "the left was weak on communism." Nixon enters the Office with promises of an "honorable victory" and his plan consisted of bombing the North back to the stone age. He, like the rest couldn't find a way out. But if we are going to argue that somebody was weak on communism, wouldn't it be Eisenhower, who would only commit to a limited war, and Nixon, who "lost" the war? One can't really argue that any of them were "weak" on communism, but one can argue that they were being led around by a superficial ideology that helped to create an enemy.

By the way, I could bring up Kennedy's attempt to disrupt communism with the Bay of Pigs fiasco or his very public confrontation with Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that would be merely adding to the point I already made.
 
This is a shallow misconception that stems from Republican political rhetoric. Aside from the global issues that all U.S. Presidents rushed to "defend" against communism, we can just look at Vietnam as the stand-out example:

1) After Eisenhower committed us to Vietnam, it was Kennedy (January 1961 – November 1963) who doubled down.

- 1961: He immediately approved an additional $42 million to the annual budget to expand the South Vietnamese Army and he increased Eisenhower's MAAG number by 100 while introducing 400 special forces troops. By the end of 1961, Kennedy had doubled Eisenhower's number of 1500 to 3,205 American "advisers" who were in combat.

- 1962: By the end, there were more than 9,000 American troops under various disguises, though it was widely known (outside of the American public) that Kennedy was clearly violating the Geneva Accords to fight communism.

- 1963: Though the evidence shows that Kennedy was not aware, Johnson was absolutely aware of the assassination plan to get rid of Diem. By the time Kennedy was assassinated twenty days later, the number of American troops in Southeast Asia hovered around 16,300.

At this point, Kennedy, like Eisenhower, was determined to keep this war limited. Of course, then Johnson (November 1963 – January 1969) blew the door wide the hell open.

- 1963-1965: He transitioned what was limited into an open-ended commitment. In NSAM 288 (1964), Johnson elevated the Adviser numbers from 16,300 to 23,300 and expanded economic aid by $50 million.

- 1965: Johnson used the Tonken issue to secure congressional resolution authorizing him to take "all necessary measures to repel any armed attacks against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." This was used to retaliate when a U.S. Army barracks was attacked in February 1965. Johnson initiated sustained and exponential bombing attacks on the North until May. In July he ordered the immediate deployment of 50,000 troops to South Vietnam.

- 1967: By the end of the year there were 485,000 American troops in Vietnam.


Now, almost half a million American troops in Vietnam seems like a lot when we compare them to Eisenhower's 1500, no? Keep in mind, that Jonson, like Kennedy, was deceiving the American public to fight communism as Republicans paraded around the notion that "the left was weak on communism." Nixon enters the Office with promises of an "honorable victory" and his plan consisted of bombing the North back to the stone age. He, like the rest couldn't find a way out. But if we are going to argue that somebody was weak on communism, wouldn't it be Eisenhower, who would only commit to a limited war, and Nixon, who "lost" the war? One can't really argue that any of them were "weak" on communism, but one can argue that they were being led around by a superficial ideology that helped to create an enemy.

By the way, I could bring up Kennedy's attempt to disrupt communism with the Bay of Pigs fiasco or his very public confrontation with Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that would be merely adding to the point I already made.

the democrat party was still conservative in the 1960's. Don't believe me? who said it, Trump or JFK: "Every dollar that is released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary". or "We want prosperity and in a free enterprise system there can be no prosperity without profit. We want a growing economy, and there can be no growth without the investment that is inspired and financed by profit."
 
Why do so many think Russia would sit back and do nothing?
 
the democrat party was still conservative in the 1960's. Don't believe me? who said it, Trump or JFK: "Every dollar that is released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary". or "We want prosperity and in a free enterprise system there can be no prosperity without profit. We want a growing economy, and there can be no growth without the investment that is inspired and financed by profit."

You have horribly confused the terms. There are differences between "left", "socialist", and "communist" even in Europe. It's why they could be social liberals and capitalist at the same time. The fear during the Cold War, and immediately after World War II, was not that Westwern Europe would go communist. It was that they might declare neutral status. This is why the Martial Plan and NATO exist. These policies and systems pulled the Western European countries into the American camp.

The Democratic Party in the 1960s was "left." And being of the "left" is exactly why they had to constantly defend themselves against the "right's" accusations that they were weak on communism. Since communism was among the global left, the GOP chose to associate Democrats simply because they are of the "left" in American politics. Don't confuse democracy and free markets for being only a conservative thing. In terms of economy, you may as well call every single U.S. President a conservative and declare the absence of a "left." Even today, the Democratic Party believes in capitalism and free markets. This does not mean that they are simply "conservative."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom