A clash of English and Russian fans at the Euro '16 demonstrates a new front for diplomatic relations between the Western countries and Russia. Russia is keen to set the little European Union project down, in order to make it more challenging for the US to assert its power. By breaking up the Union, the US loses a valuable tool to generally tie Europe up into a nice little bag and decide a generic foreign policy for the continent. Though they can disagree, such as when France and Germany, the two most central pillars of the institution decided to criticize the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, Europe generally respects the authority of the US in foreign affairs.
For the past two years, Europe has been faced with the prospect of mass migration from outside the continent, as a result of both the Syrian Civil War and the collapse of the state in Libya after Qaddafi's demise. Suddenly, Western Europe has been forced to think about the open-travel area amongst them, as a large number of visibly, economically, culturally, and socially different people have come to certain countries in particular, with historically low border protection to prevent further migration. Russia is keen to take advantage of this fear, and is projecting it into Ukraine, where the border is meaningless between those two states (no matter how much Russia denies it to international organizations). Russia is saying don't come any closer, because this is what happens.
By using football hooligans to terrorize and aggressively confront other countries' drunken fans, particularly English ones in France, this shows the power the Russian state has in Western Europe. Though far less than in Ukraine, Russian state-sponsored forces can organize coordinated attacks on civilians under the guise of sport. The slow realization that Russia is actively promoting these activities on foreign soil, coupled with a sudden rush of immigrants, undermines the safety of an open Europe. A Brexit, which would effectively end the open borders the island has with the continent, would force other countries to question the benefits of the system, particularly those with lower amounts of refugees and immigrants. With a Trump presidency possible, a partial withdrawal of American forces from European bases is almost guaranteed. Russia is banking on these factors to cut off the sustained Western-led efforts to constrain it since the Second World War when it existed as the Soviet Union. A Europe without Britain would be weaker; a Europe without Britain while the US disengages would leave them close to defenceless without unity. A disintegrated Europe conscious of national borders would give Russia breathing space, and allow it to attempt to retake what it sees as rightfully theirs, i.e. a larger sphere of influence and a larger say in the geopolitical direction of Europe itself. Russia cannot confront the US-led Western world militarily or economically. Instead, it must rely on more covert means to make them question their unity, until the time is ripe for change.
Ian Scott
I really don't want to read all this, can you sum it up in like 5 words?
Leo Moore
Russia destroys West through borders
Aaron Baker
Doesn't mass immigration destroy the west through borders?
Jose Bell
yes and russia is pushing it is my point. the West to too PC and too far invested in the multiculturalism too admit it, but yes it will the the thing that breaks up Europe
Lucas Morris
Fuck off Obama
John Barnes
why
Kevin Watson
...
Sebastian Reed
thanks
Cooper Sanders
You dumb nigger you are saying brexit would make russia stronger? So you have a choice: 1. Let sandniggers continue the jewish sponsored invasion 2. Let russia exert more influence
And you chose 1.? FUCK YOU.
Justin Nguyen
Jews Jews Jews. There are many forces at work, including the Jews. Sometimes they work with each other, sometimes they work against each other, sometimes they give each other enough space if there is a common goal, only to turn on each other on a dime. That is how power works. A Brexit would make Russia because it would remove one of the most powerful members of the institution, while also removing the US' Trojan horse at the same time. The EU would find itself more autonomous from the US, but also more susceptible to Russia power, because the Anglo-world wouldn't be as invested in it. You're an idiot if you don't think Russia wants more refugees in Western Europe, at least momentarily, to cause enough of a threat to safety and sovereignty that EU countries begin backing out. Russia's campaign in Syria, particularly in the last year, has brought unprecedented numbers of foreigners to Europe. Do you really think they would be oblivious to the possibility of that happening?
Andrew Garcia
would make Russia stronger**
Jayden Perez
>Do you really think they would be oblivious to the possibility of that happening? You bring up a good point. But russia has been outplaying the west at every turn since last year. I don't think a more unified EU would help in this situation since they (the jews) invited islam in.
Alexander Peterson
POLITICAL HOOLIGANISM
Get ready, Bongistan.
Landon Lee
Yes and the US has thought that militarily confronting them would stop them. So long as Russia doesn't directly confront them then they can get away with murder through denial. The EU signifies the American footprint in Europe. It controls the EU so much so that it can organize all members to impose sanctions on Russia (thought it only needs control of the stronger ones in reality). A Brexit signifies that the most important US ally in the institution no longer wants to partake, opening the door for more fragmentation, and individual states choosing their own relationship with Russia, or their own relationship with Germany or France.
The Caspian Report is awesome, I first came across it maybe a year ago? I try my hardest to find a balanced intake of news, which means having to watch fuckin NBC and Fox simultaneously, but finding one in the middle is hard. The Caspian Report seems pretty central, though I'm sure there's some bias somewhere, because there always is even if its unintentional. Their take on the Syrian Civil War and the implication that a lot of it has to do with oil and gas supplies (particularly from Qatar, who will fund anything as long as their armed) is also quite good. I haven't seen much else of their stuff, but now that you reminded me I might check some more out.
Benjamin Sanders
Not everything is about Jews. The Jew have their stake in it, as do many other high-influence/power groups. However I do agree that it is indeed a removal of national sovereignty to an institution power elites (of various origins and in various antagonistic/friendly relationships) would like to see too
