UPI:n Tiilikainen: EU kestää, koska sille ei ole vaihtoehtoa

[Skeptikko]

Nyt on tuhannen taalan paikka luoda euroarmeija EU:n natomaiden + Suomen armeijan rungolle.

Pahoin pelkään, että Juncker ja byrokraatit onnistuvat ryssimään tuonkin tekemään siitä jonkun kammottavan kömpelön byrokraattisen virityksen EU:n 400-sivuisen "perustuslain" tapaan ja koplaamaan siihen jotain läyttömyyksiä, kuten jotain pakolaisten massamuuttoa Eurooppaan tai jotain muuta vastaavaa yhtä älytöntä.

[latrom]

Euroarmeija voi sitten kukistaa kansannousuja provinsseissa.

[Aksiooma]

Euroarmeija voi sitten kukistaa kansannousuja provinsseissa.

Sitä on jo harjoiteltu vuosia:

According to a 2013 report by the EU's own Institute of Strategic Studies, Battle Groups are now "closely associated with the blueprint for permanent structured cooperation  as set out by the then constitutional treaty to allow member states to make more binding commitments to each other in defence matters".

More than 1,500 troops from Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden arrived in Britain last week to take part in the war games.

They worked alongside soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment, 4 Infantry Brigade, the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers.

Loput Daily Express 23.5.2016

[JKN93]

Tämmönen kiertää nyt EU parlamentissa;
Euroopan parlamentin päätöslauselmaesitys:
"EU:n strategisesta viestinnästä kolmansien osapuolten levittämän EU:n vastaisen propagandan torjumiseksi"
(koko pitkä teksti selityksineen suomeksi tuolta;)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A8-2016-0290&language=FI

[JKN93]

Euroopan puolustusunionista kans paperit parhaillaan vetämässä EU parlamentissa;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A8-2016-0316&language=FI

[JKN93]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/732823/European-Union-increases-military-spending-defence-Pentagon-EU-army-NATO

Dawn of EU Pentagon: Brussels to build defence agency run by politicians playing soldiers

AN OBSCURE defence agency could play a key role in greater military cooperation as the European Union pushes on with plans for an EU army.

Although virtually unknown, the European Defence Agency could be a vital element if the EU hopes to forge tighter defence links in the future.

Currently, the organisation has a relatively tiny budget, staff of just 130 people, and is run by diplomats not military chiefs.

Jean Claude Juncker's Euro PentagonGETTY
Jean Claude Juncker shamelessly admitted he'd push on with EU army plans

But there have been suggestions the EDA could become the European equivalent of the Pentagon - the headquarters of the United States Department of Defence.

While EU officials raised its military budget from £26.2 to £26.6 million on Tuesday, the sum pales in comparison to the Pentagon's £464.5 million.

The EU has increased military spending for the next year
But the increase is the first for the agency since 2010, and comes as the EU pushes forward with other efforts to ramp up military spending - including establishing an EU defence fund.

And with the push for more military cooperation, the EDA is expected to gain new relevance new importance and most importantly new powers.

Plans drawn up by Federica Mogherini, the EU's foreign policy chief, will give it a central role in boosting efficiency and increasing the capability of European defence systems.

A spokesperson said: "The European Commission is ready to play an active role in fostering European defence cooperation.

"Europe's soft power is not enough in the long run without at least some integrated defence capacities."

Overall military spending in Europe hit £171 billion last year, but only four out of the 28 EU nations met the NATO spending target of 2 per cent of economic output.

Donald Trump has called for Europe to take on more of NATO's funding

Mr Juncker vowed the EU would get its own army
We need a new approach to building a European security union with the end goal of establishing a European army
Jean-Claude Juncker

Spending, which has long been a contentious issue within the EU, is likely to be all the more important following the US election of Donald Trump - who has repeatedly demanded that Europe bear's more of the financial cost of NATO.

While Brussels bigwig Jean-Claude Juncker has shamelessly admitted he is determined his plans for the bloc's own army would still go ahead. 

He said: "We need more security in Europe, and I do not mean just the fight against terrorism.

"Talking about security, we need a different way of organising a European defence.

"We have a lot to thank the Americans for, but they won't look after Europe's security for ever. We have to do this ourselves.

"We need a new approach to building a European security union with the end goal of establishing a European army."

Soldier laying down barbed wire at borderGETTY
Overall military spending in Europe hit £171 billion last year

The news comes after Britain declared victory over the EU yesterday, saying the UK had successfully won over enough other countries to block plans for an EU army.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon claimed there was enough opposition to ensure the plans would be watered down.

But Jorqe Domecq, a Spanish diplomat who serves as the EDA's chief executive, has blasted comments comparing the agency to the Pentagon - and slapped down any rumours over plans for an EU army.

He claims the EDA's tiny budget reflects the job it does - which he says is not to supplant national militaries but instead to coordinate the efforts of EU countries to improve security.

He said: "The objective is not to become the Pentagon. We are not seeking a European army and we are not seeking a European Pentagon."

[sivullinen.]

Tämmönen kiertää nyt EU parlamentissa;
Euroopan parlamentin päätöslauselmaesitys:
"EU:n strategisesta viestinnästä kolmansien osapuolten levittämän EU:n vastaisen propagandan torjumiseksi"

[tweet]798543621654007809[/tweet]

Suomi mainittu.

[JKN93]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/733109/Barack-Obama-European-Union-World-War-politics-EU-Brexit-nationalism

Still here Barack? Now Obama says Europe will be 'bloodbath' if EU breaks up

BARACK Obama has said the increase of nationalism within the European Union could result in a "bloodbath" as he continues to lecture the continent's political big wigs despite being ridiculed for his Brexit interjections.

Barack Obama warned the Eu could turn into a bloodbath if nationalism increases

The US President warned against "the rise of crude nationalism" and hinted the break-up of the EU could spark another world war.

As anti-Obama rioters demonstrated outside, Mr Obama grandstanded in Athens on the first leg of his farewell tour of Europe.

Petrol bombs & riots in the streets of Athens as Obama visits Greece
Trump's snub to Brussels as he names Britain but NOT the EU as ally

He told his captive audience: "We know what happens when Europeans start dividing themselves up...the 20th century was a bloodbath.

"We are going to have to guard against a rise of crude nationalism or ethnic identity or tribalism being built around an 'us' and a 'them'."

Obama's visit to England in the run up to the Brexit vote massively backfired for the Remain camp
Mr Obama claimed the Brexit vote and Donald Trump's election were a result of "stress" within the general population but said that does not mean the public made the right decision.

He said: "Sometimes people in situations of stress just opt for changes and feel as if they want to shake things up even if they are not confident what that will bring."

But he warned not to draw parallels between the Brexit victory and Mr Trump's election.

He added: "Theresa May is a traditional conservative, unlike Le Pen in France and Donald Trump. Situations in each country are different, but history does not move in a straight line.

"And I will never apologise for saying that the future of humanity is going to be defined by what we have in common, [not] those things that separate us and ultimately lead us into conflict.

"The more aggressively and effectively we deal with economic dislocation and inequality, the less likely these fears will channel into counterproductive approaches that can pit people against each other."

Obama seemed to allude to the death tolls of the World Wars in his speech
But the soon-to-be retired American President remained tight-lipped about his country's future under President-elect Trump.

He said: "Time will tell. That's all going to be an interesting test. And we'll see whether these facts affect calculations in next elections."

Mr Obama tried to allay fears of Baltic nations that Mr Trump would remove America from NATO, potentially opening the door to a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe.

Mr trump had said he wanted to see other NATO members "paying their way" and questioned the use of the international security arrangement.

But Mr Obama promised the Brussels bloc's members that America would stand firm on promises its made to European nations.

[JKN93]

EU yrittää torjua sitä hajottavaa euroskeptistä propagandaa;
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/733170/EU-chiefs-dismiss-eurosceptic-revolution-as-RUSSIAN-PROPAGANDA

DON'T QUESTION US! Arrogant EU chiefs dismiss eurosceptic revolution as RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA

CRAZED Brussels chiefs will blame the eurosceptic revolution sweeping the continent on Russian propaganda in a jaw-dropping new communications strategy.

Bureaucrats from the EU's Directorate-General for External Policies have penned an astonishing document which claims Vladimir Putin was behind Brexit, the Scottish independence bid and even the Wikileaks website.

The bombshell report is part of a new Brussels strategy to combat growing "populist" movements which are threatening to unseat europhile leaders across the continent.

It will be presented to the Conference of Presidents - made up of EU parliament chief Martin Schulz and the heads of the party political groups - next week.

Russia also regularly involves itself in other controversial issues inside Europe, be it the Scottish referendum, the Brexit campaign, or the Assange affair
Directorate General for External Resources
Critics tonight said the extraordinary document showed that eurocrats were panicking because their superstate dream has finally been rumbled by voters.

Express.co.uk can reveal how Brussels bureaucrats are now directly blaming Vladimir Putin for the results of the EU referendum in an astonishing claim likely to raise eyebrows across the globe.

The document comes as researchers prepare to descend on the French city of Strasbourg on Monday night to discuss how the crumbling bloc can clamp down on 'populist' movements like the Brexit leave campaign.

And they claim that Russia directly influenced the results of both the EU referendum the Scottish independence referendum, as well as allegedly being behind the Wikileaks site created by Australian hacker Julian Assange.

The navel gazing exercise will set out how the bloc plans to tackle detractors and those who threaten its "soft power".

And the eurocrats say their dreams of a European superstate are being "undermined" by populist movements which are threatening to rip the fragile bloc apart.

In a 35 page report, published by the Directorate General for External Resources, the "counteracting propaganda" strategy comes up with some wild claims.

It states: "Moscow's ultimate goal is to convince European audiences that the EU is focused on imagined threats from Russia and neglecting the real ones from the south.

"Russia also regularly involves itself in other controversial issues inside Europe, be it the Scottish referendum, the Brexit campaign, or the Assange affair."

The lengthy report will be presented after European Central Bank president Mario Draghi gives his 2015 budget breakdown.

It says: "Over the past few years, the EU has been increasingly hit by destabilising messages amounting – albeit in different forms and to different degrees – to coherent hostile 'strategic communications' campaigns.

"Those promoted and orchestrated by Russia, inside Russia itself, within the EU, and in the European countries neighbouring both, have explicitly targeted the EU as such, its nature and its policies.

"Last but certainly not least, both campaigns have played on the EU's own weaknesses.

"It is difficult to deny that the Union's 'soft power' has suffered considerably in recent times: internal divisions, inadequate policy delivery, and mounting populism have all contributed to creating an environment, even inside the EU itself, significantly more receptive to their messaging – which, in turn, further undermines that 'soft power' and, more generally, EU influence."
   
But it was been slammed by Ukip's defence spokesman Mike Hookem, who said the EU was struggling to accept that people had finally cottoned on to the true nature of its political project.

He said: "The peoples of Europe are now asking questions of the EU mandarins that they have no answer for, and no amount of spin will solve that.

"This move by the Council of Presidents shows just how worried EU leaders are that the people have finally realised they have been duped.

"But rather than implementing serious reform, EU leaders will once again try to spin their way out of trouble with yet more propaganda.

"The fact is, the EU project is failing the people it was created to serve.

"You only have to look at the southern European states, the struggling Euro, and the migrant crisis, to see that they have little clue how to govern 500 million people.

[JKN93]

Obama ja Merkel vielä vakuuttelevat vahvaa yhtenäisyyttään,että globalisaatio kestää...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/733171/barack-obama-angela-merkel-us-germany-stronger-together

CLINGING TO THE PAST? Obama and Merkel say they are stronger together

BARACK Obama and Angela Merkel claim the US and Germany are "stronger together" as their last gasp love-in before the President steps down in January continues.

Barack Obama and Angela Merkel stressed the US and Germany are stronger together

President Obama has embarked on a farewell tour and has been quick to travel to Germany to meet with Mrs Merkel, who he named his "closest ally" earlier this week.

The two leaders have forged a close transatlantic alliance during eight years in office and have used a joint article to stress their ties ahead of Mr Obama's final trip to Europe as president.

But Mr Obama maintained his promise that he will assure world leaders of America's position on global economic and security issues ahead of the changes at the White House.

The pair said "we're stronger if we work together" in a joint guest piece for German magazine Wirtschaftswoche.

Mrs Merkel and Mr Obama stressed their shared values in the article and spoke in favour of the EU-US trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Their comments are in sharp contrast to those of President-elect Donald Trump who made attacks on international trade deals a cornerstone of his election campaign, saying they have cost US jobs.

The pair said: "There will be no return to a world before globalisation.

"An agreement that links our economies more closely and that builds on rules that comply with our shared values would help us to grow over the coming decades and to remain competitive at the global level."

The duo added German and US employers, workers, consumers and farmers would "without doubt" benefit from the TTIP.

Defying Mr Trump, the German Chancellor and Mr Obama stressed that cooperation is now more important than ever in the face of rapidly expanding global challenges, but also economic opportunities.

The two leaders added that Germans and Americans needed to take the opportunity to shape the way globalisation happens according to their own values and ideas.

They said: "We owe it to our companies and our citizens - and in fact to the whole international community - to broaden and deepen our cooperation."

The German Chancellor and US President have forged an alliance in the last eight years
Mrs Merkel has been the driving force in Europe behind the controversial TTIP, which has been under negotiation for more than three years. Brussels and Washington both realise it will not now be completed under Mr Obama's term as earlier planned.

The two leaders will dine at Berlin's famous Adlon hotel directly next to the landmark Brandenburg Gate this evening.

German chancellor Angela Merkel is certainly one of EU's most powerful women, we take a look through the awkward embraces she has with world leaders.
   
Last week Ms Merkel, Europe's most powerful leader, offered to work with Mr Trump on the basis of their countries' shared democratic values.

Ms Merkel and President Obama will hold bilateral talks on Thursday before they are joined on Friday by the leaders of France, Britain, Spain and Italy.

[Golimar]

Katainen: Komission nuhteet eivät tarkoita Suomen hallituksen epäonnistuneen

Komission varapuheenjohtaja Jyrki Katainen uskoo, että EU on 3–5 vuoden kuluttua nykyistä tiiviimmin ja laajemmin integroitunut.

Euroopan komission varapuheenjohtaja, Suomen entinen pääministeri Jyrki Katainen sanoo, että Suomen tilanne on huonompi kuin hänen aikanaan.

Suomi sai viimeksi keskiviikkona komissiolta nuhteet budjettisääntöjen rikkomisesta. Komission mukaan Suomi ei näytä onnistuvan EU:n kasvu- ja vakaussopimuksen ehtojen täyttämisessä.

– Siinä mielessä (tilanne on) ehkä huonompi, että velkataso on mennyt yli 60 prosentin (bruttokansantuotteesta) ja vajeet ovat suurempia, mutta en arvostele Suomea.

Katainen sanoi Ylelle, että komission nuhteet eivät ole merkki Suomen hallituksen epäonnistumisesta.

– Kysymys on siitä, että rakenneuudistusten tekeminen on aina vaikeaa ja niiden hedelmät tulevat aina viiveellä.

Kataisen mukaan hallituksen on vain pidettävä huoli siitä, että tahti uudistuksissa ei notkahda.

"Käynnissä populismin mm-kisat"

Helsingissä vieraileva Katainen puhui torstaina paneelikeskustelussa komission Suomen-edustustossa. Vaikka Britannian päätös erota EU:sta horjuttaa unionia, Katainen sanoi, että integraatio etenee.

– Minun arvioni on, että EU ja Eurooppa tulee olemaan huomattavasti tiiviimmin ja laajemmin integroitunut 3–5 vuoden kuluttua kuin mitä se on tällä hetkellä.

Kataisen mukaan integraatio on tällä hetkellä "valtavaa", koska yritykset, hallitukset ja kansalaisjärjestöt vaativat sitä komissiolta. Hän nosti esimerkiksi digitaaliset sisämarkkinat ja energiamarkkinat sekä puolustusyhteistyön ja terrorismin torjunnan tiivistymisen.

Katainen korosti kuitenkin sitä, että Euroopan päätöksentekijöiden pitää vastustaa populismia, joka on lisännyt epävakautta Euroopassa.

– Käynnissä ovat poliittisen populismin mm-kisat. Vielä noin viikko sitten Eurooppa johti 1–0, mutta nyt ollaan Yhdysvaltojen kanssa tasoissa. Kilpailu on kova.

Katainen huolehti työpaikattomasta kasvusta

Katainen puhui myös julkisten menojen lisäämisestä sekä tulonjaon tasaamisen puolesta, mutta ei Suomessa.

Euroopan komissio on nostanut esiin, että euroalueella olisi tarpeen lisätä julkisia menoja. Kataisen mukaan vain kourallisella maita olisi varaa elvyttää, kuten Saksassa, Hollannilla, Slovenialla ja Virolla. Suomi ei kuulu joukkoon, vaikka velkaa on vähemmän kuin Saksalla.

– Suomen velka kasvaa, Saksan ei. Myös työttömyys on Saksassa matalampaa, Katainen totesi.

Katainen toisti komission sanoman, että ne maat, joilla olisi varaa lisätä julkisia investointeja, eivät halua sitä tehdä, ja ne maat, joilla ei ole varaa, haluavat.

Katainen piti tärkeänä myös sen huomioimista, että EU-maissa talous voi kasvaa reippaasti ja varallisuus lisääntyä, mutta työllisyys ei silti nouse, mikä liittyy digitalisaation etenemiseen.

– Yksityisellä sektorillakin on alettu kasvavissa määrin esittää ajatuksia, että jäsenmaissa kannattaa kiinnittää kilpailukyvyn ja vapaakaupan puolustamisen lisäksi entistä enemmän huomiota tulonjakoon. Liikutaan lähellä ajatusmallia, jota Pohjoismaissa on harrastettu.

Suomessa tulonjaon tarkastelulle ei Kataisen mukaan ole juuri tarvetta. Hänen mukaansa Suomessa tilanne on hyvä, mutta muualla Euroopassa kannattaa katsoa tulonjaon tasaisuuden perään, kun avataan taloutta.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9300579

Päivän Pahkasika Siilinjärven lapsinerolta.

[Uuno Nuivanen]

Komission varapuheenjohtaja Jyrki Katainen uskoo, että EU on 3–5 vuoden kuluttua nykyistä tiiviimmin ja laajemmin integroitunut.

Kuulostaa lupaavalta. Tähän asti kun lapsinero on aina ollut 100%:sti väärässä joka asiassa.   

[JKN93]

Nyt viranomaiset pelkäävät tuleviin Saksan ja Ranskan vaaleihin puuttumista EU:n hajottamiseksi;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3941550/Germany-alarmed-potential-Russian-interference-election-agency-head.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

German spy chief fears Russia may try to interfere in national elections next year as he accuses Moscow of spreading toxic lies
Hans-Georg Maassen made the accusation on Tuesday night
Spoke of hybrid threat that seeks to influence public opinion
Comes after Merkel mentioned signs of Russian internet attacks
Germany's spy chief fears that Russia may try to interfere in Germany's national elections next year.
Hans-Georg Maassen, head of the domestic BfV intelligence agency, has accused Moscow of spreading toxic lies in a bid to influence German public opinion. 
He cited the high-profile case last year of a young Russian woman from Berlin who Russian media said was kidnapped and raped by migrants, a claim later refuted by the German government.
'This could happen again next year and we are alarmed,' Maassen told Reuters in an interview late on Tuesday.
'We have the impression that this is part of a hybrid threat that seeks to influence public opinion and decision-making processes.'
German Chancellor Angela Merkel raised similar concerns last week, saying there were signs of Internet attacks and misinformation campaigns from Russia.
Maassen said it was important to publicly expose such campaigns. 'When people realize that the information that they are getting is not true... then the toxic lies lose their effectiveness.'
It comes on the back of Donald Trump's successful US election campaign, which was dogged by accusations of Russian meddling which were denied by Moscow.
Hillary Clinton accused Russia of assisting Trump's campaign with cyber attacks resulting in the leak of her emails from a private server.
Trump responded in their third live TV debate: 'I don't know Putin.'
French intelligence services have also warned of possible Russian influence in the country's spring 2017 election campaign.
It is thought that eurosceptic Putin is funding right-wing anti-immigrant parties in a bid to undermine the EU.

[Roope]

– Yksityisellä sektorillakin on alettu kasvavissa määrin esittää ajatuksia, että jäsenmaissa kannattaa kiinnittää kilpailukyvyn ja vapaakaupan puolustamisen lisäksi entistä enemmän huomiota tulonjakoon. Liikutaan lähellä ajatusmallia, jota Pohjoismaissa on harrastettu.

Suomessa tulonjaon tarkastelulle ei Kataisen mukaan ole juuri tarvetta. Hänen mukaansa Suomessa tilanne on hyvä, mutta muualla Euroopassa kannattaa katsoa tulonjaon tasaisuuden perään, kun avataan taloutta.

EU-tasolla ei käydä keskustelua niinkään jäsenmaiden sisäisestä tulonjaosta vaan entistä suuremmista maiden välisistä tulonsiirroista, joita pidetään EU:n koossa pysymisen ja liittovaltion edellytyksenä. En ihmettele, että Katainen on ymmärtävinään asian väärin.

[Eisernes Kreuz]

Komission varapuheenjohtaja Jyrki Katainen uskoo, että EU on 3–5 vuoden kuluttua nykyistä tiiviimmin ja laajemmin integroitunut.

Kuulostaa lupaavalta. Tähän asti kun lapsinero on aina ollut 100%:sti väärässä joka asiassa.   

Ja erityisesti talousasioissa. Kaikki varmaankin muistamme hänen huolellisen analyysinsa USA:ssa v. 2008 alkaneesta pankkikriisistä: "Ei koske Suomea!"

Kun siis Jykä arvelee EU:n olevan elämänsä kunnossa 3-5 vuoden kuluttua, se lienee tuolloin oikeasti kuoleman kielissä.

[Jouko]

Rooma kesti, koska sille ei ollut vaihtoehtoa. No, me ei tiedetä mahtavasta Rooman Valtakunnasta juuri mitään. Ei ole säilyneitä dokumentteja esimerkiksi asevarusteluteollisuudesta.
On vain joidenkin kirjoittelijoitten riipusteluja ja huhupuheita. Joitain kivipiirroksia.

Emme tiedä millainen oli roomalainen armeija ja miten se huollettiin. Ei yksikään vakavasti otettava historijoitsija tiedä sitä asevarusteluteollisuutta ja logistiikkaa, mikä vaadittiin miljoona-armeijan ylläpitoon!

Roomalaisilla oli asevarusteluteollisuus ja se sai energiansa vesivoimasta, tuulivoimasta ja erityisesti orjatyövoimasta!

Höyryvoima?

[JKN93]

"Nollakorot eivät riitä - EU menee kohti yhteistä finanssipolitiikkaa"
http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/nollakorot-eivat-riita---eu-menee-kohti-yhteista-finanssipolitiikkaa/ebpSNHqD

[JKN93]

www.verkkouutiset.fi/politiikka/virkkunen%20venaja-57790

Henna Virkkunen: Nato-jäsenyys päättäisi aidalla istuskelun

Europarlamentaarikko Henna Virkkunen (kok.) pitää tärkeänä, että Suomi toimii aktiivisesti sekä EU:n puolustusyhteistyön syventämisessä että luotaessa strategiaa Venäjän EU:ta ja sen jäsenmaita käymää informaatiosotaa vastaan.

Suomen turvallisuustilanne on Henna Virkkusen mukaan viime vuosina heikentynyt Venäjän aggressiivisen politiikan seurauksena.

– Meidän kannattaa olla tiiviisti mukana EU:n puolustusyhteistyön tiivistämisessä, vaikka se ei NATO-jäsenyyttä korvaakaan, Virkkunen arvioi tiedoteessaan.

Euroopan parlamentin asialistalla on ensi viikon Strasbourgin täysistunnossa sekä puolustusunionin kehittäminen että mietintö EU:n strategisesta viestinnästä kolmansien osapuolten levittämän EU:n vastaisen propagandan torjumiseksi.

Venäjän hybridivaikuttamiseen on Virkkusen mukaan kunnolla herätty vasta viime aikoina, vaikka toiminta on ollut aktiivista jo pitkään. Hänen mielestään oman tiedustelulainsäädännön päivittäminen on Suomessa ensimmäinen askel, mutta muitakin toimia tarvitaan.

– Kansalaisten kannalta laadukas journalismi on avainasemassa. Informaatiosota haastaa toimittajat tekemään perusteellisia taustaselvityksiä ja tarjoamaan oikeaa ja olennaista tietoa Venäjän toiminnasta, Virkkunen sanoo.

Hänen mukaansa myös EU:n puolustusulottuvuutta on tarpeen vahvistaa.

– Euroopan on otettava itse enemmän vastuuta omasta puolustuksestaan. Nyt manner on liiaksi Yhdysvaltain varassa. Toisaalta kyse on myös resurssien tehokkaammasta käytöstä, arvion mukaan EU-maiden puutteellinen yhteistyö ja toisaalta päällekkäisyydet maksavat jäsenmaiden puolustuksessa yli 26 miljardia vuodessa, Virkkunen toteaa.

Euroopan parlamentti korostaa mietinnössään tarvetta tiivistää EU-maiden sotilaallista yhteistyötä, lisätä yhteistä suunnittelua ja hankintoja sekä tiivistää EU:n suhdetta Naton kanssa. Myös eurooppalaista puolustusteollisuutta halutaan vahvistaa.

– EU-parlamentti haluaa jäsenmaiden nostavan puolustusbudjettiensa osuuden vähintään kahteen prosenttiin BKT:stä, joka on myös NATOn tavoite. Viime vuonna siihen kuitenkin ylsi vain viisi EU-maata, Virkkunen huomauttaa.

Virkkusen mielestä Suomen ja Ruotsin NATO-jäsenyys selkeyttäisi tilannetta myös EU:n puolustusyhteistyötä hahmoteltaessa.

– NATO-jäsenyys päättäisi aidalla istuskelun, pohdinnat siitä onko ovi auki vai ei ja vahvistaisi koko Itämeren alueen turvallisuutta. Harmaalle alueelle joutuminen on Suomelle pahin mahdollinen tilanne, Virkkunen korostaa.

[JKN93]

http://www.verkkouutiset.fi/politiikka/mepit%20breibart%20facebook-57801

Donald Trumpin propagandakone aikoo ohjata Ranskan vaaleja – "EU-projekti on erittäin vakavassa vaarassa"

Heidi Hautala muistuttaa, että EU ei ole itsestäänselvyys. Tällä hetkellä sitä puristetaan monelta suunnalta.

Ranskalaispuolue Kansallinen rintama (Front National) toivottaa yhdysvaltalaisen uutistoimisto Breitbart Newsin tervetulleeksi Ranskaan.

– Kaikki vaihtoehtomediat ovat positiivinen ilmiö. Donald Trump on siitä esimerkki, sanoo ranskalaisparlamentaarikko Marion Marechal-Le Pen, jonka täti Marine Le Pen johtaa Kansallista rintamaa.

Breitbart News ilmoitti aiemmin tällä viikolla, että se suunnittelee liiketoimintaa Ranskassa.

– Euroopassa on lukijakunta, jota palvellaan huonosti. Samat lukijat on sivuutettu sekä Britanniassa että Yhdysvalloissa, sanoo Breitbartin päätoimittaja Alex Marlow New York Timesille.

Breitbartia pidetään laitaoikeistolaisena ja populistisena tiedotusvälineenä. Presidentiksi valittu Trump on nimittänyt Breitbartin puheenjohtaja Stephen Bannonin strategiajohtajakseen.

EU-parlamentaarikko Heidi Hautala (vihr.) pitää Breitbartin rantautumista Eurooppaan huolestuttavana ilmiönä. Hän muistuttaa, että Ranskassa on presidentinvaalit puolen vuoden päästä ja että Breitbart pyrkii vaikuttamaan niiden lopputulokseen. Marine Le Pen on vaaleissa ehdolla.

– Nyt on sellainen hetki, että pitää todeta, että EU-projekti on erittäin vakavassa vaarassa. EU ei todellakaan ole itsestäänselvyys.

Hänen mukaansa EU:hun kohdistuu paineita monelta suunnalta: Trumpin lisäksi Britannia aikoo jättää unionin, ja Venäjän ulkopolitiikkaa muuttuu yhä aggressiivisemmaksi. Turkin hallinto on tehnyt laajoja puhdistuksia kesällä tapahtuneen vallankaappausyrityksen jälkeen.

Hautala arvioi, että Breitbart yrittää hyödyntää näitä tekijöitä.

– Breitbart palvelee ja aikoo palvella sitä äänestäjäkuntaa, joka on tyytymätön maailman menoon, siis niitä jotka äänestivät Trumpia ja jotka äänestivät Brexitin puolesta. On käynnissä sellainen prosessi että oksat pois.

Marlow onkin ilmoittanut, että Breitbart aikoo tukea Le Peniä, minkä lisäksi se haluaa vaikuttaa myös Saksan vaaleihin.

Hautala kaipaa keinoja vastata propagandamedioiden leviämiseen, mutta ei keksi muita keinoja kuin EU:n pienen faktantarkistustoimiston: EU:n ulkosuhdehallinto kokoaa disinformation review -katsaukseensa Venäjä-myönteisten tahojen levittämää väärää tietoa.

Myös Facebookia ja muuta sosiaalista mediaa on vaadittu rajoittamaan ns. valemedioiden uutisia. Kokoomusmeppi Henna Virkkunen sanoo, että Yhdysvaltain vaalien aikaan jaettiin miljoona kertaa "uutista", jossa paavi kehotti äänestämään Trumpia. Tieto ei pitänyt paikkaansa.

Virkkunen arvioi, että lainsäädännön kautta voi olla vaikeaa vaikuttaa Facebookin tarjoamiin sisältöihin.

– Tällä hetkellä tuntuu, että siihen ei ole mahdollisuutta. Luottaisin ihmisten omaan mediakriittisyyteen ja laadukkaaseen journalismiin.

EU-parlamentaarikko Sirpa Pietikäinen (kok.) vertaa Facebookia kauppaan. Kauppa on myyntialusta, joka joutuu kantamaan vastuun, jos se myy tavaraa, joka on tuotettu epäeettisesti vaikkapa Kiinassa. Samalla tavoin Facebook on julkaisualusta, jonka täytyy olla vastuussa julkaisemastaan materiaalista, ainakin silloin, jos kyse on selvistä valheista.

– Virtuaalimaailma ei voi olla toinen maailma, vaan siellä täytyy olla samat pelisäännöt.

[xor_rox]

NATO-kiimaa kokevalle Virkkuselle suosittelisin uutisten lukemista muistakin lähteistä kuin HS Pravdasta. Suomella on mahdollisesti nimittäin edessään ihan uusi ongelma, jossa riittää kyllä pohdittavaa, eli aiommeko käydä täällä pohjoisessa taloussotaa vielä siinäkin vaiheessa, kun USA ja Venäjä liittoutuvat ja alkavat ratkoa ongelmia yhdessä. Jos emme, niin Virkkusen kannattaisikin nyt pohtia NATO-jäsenyyden sijaan sitä, miten hallitus voisi peruuttaa pakotepäätökset menettämättä täysin kasvojaan.

[xor_rox]

Hautala, Virkkunen, Pietikäinen. On siinä kansalla melkoisia edustajia eurostoparlamentissa. Tyhjät päät vain kolisevat.

Hautala kaipaa keinoja vastata propagandamedioiden leviämiseen, mutta ei keksi muita keinoja kuin EU:n pienen faktantarkistustoimiston: EU:n ulkosuhdehallinto kokoaa disinformation review -katsaukseensa Venäjä-myönteisten tahojen levittämää väärää tietoa.

Ei oikein sanat enää riitä kuvaamaan, millainen älyn jättiläinen edustaja Hautalassa asustelee. Heitänkin ilmaan vain yhden kysymyksen, eli kenen luulette lukevan noita eurostobyrokraattien tuhertamia katsauksia?

[Peltipaita]

EU-parlamentaarikko Sirpa Pietikäinen (kok.) vertaa Facebookia kauppaan. Kauppa on myyntialusta, joka joutuu kantamaan vastuun, jos se myy tavaraa, joka on tuotettu epäeettisesti vaikkapa Kiinassa. Samalla tavoin Facebook on julkaisualusta, jonka täytyy olla vastuussa julkaisemastaan materiaalista, ainakin silloin, jos kyse on selvistä valheista.

– Virtuaalimaailma ei voi olla toinen maailma, vaan siellä täytyy olla samat pelisäännöt.

Jos kirjoitan feispookkiin että maaplaneetta on litteä, onko feispookki vastuussa siitä? Onko feispook kohta maailman ensimmäinen media josta voi lukea varmuudella tosiasioita?

[JKN93]

http://www.gmfus.org/blog/2016/11/07/weathering-storm-talking-european-populism-eve-us-election

Weathering the Storm: Talking European Populism on the Eve of the U.S. Election

Ted Reinert
Program Officer, Transatlantic Academy   

As an ardent xenophile, ideologically committed to the values of diversity and political and cultural liberalism, though happy to have civil debates about economic and foreign policy, the rise of populism across Europe and other corners of the world is a depressing topic for me. Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination for the U.S. presidency, the surprise result of the Brexit referendum driven by attitudes towards immigration, and the rule of the current Hungarian and Polish governments are clear signs that illiberalism, nationalism, and xenophobia are growing in the United States and Europe. Emotional political responses to a status quo that suffers from some very real problems and a search for simple answers to the modern world's staggering complexities risk sucking the postwar liberal international order and the very real human gains achieved under it in the 20th and 21st centuries into the abyss. Sometimes I joke weakly that eventually we'll all be murdered by fascists and I'm just hoping we can extend the years before that happens.

On November 2, in the middle of the nervous 11 days between the FBI's Late October Surprise and Election Day, with Trump inching ominously up in the polls, the Transatlantic Academy and The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) Europe Program held a lunch discussion on populism in Europe with GMF senior transatlantic fellow Timo Lochocki and Weekly Standard senior editor Christopher Caldwell in Washington, which I moderated. Beyond Brexit, Europe has seen the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) find success in German regional elections as Chancellor Angela Merkel loses support on her right less than a year out from federal elections. The Front National's Marine Le Pen looms over the French presidential elections next spring as President François Hollande's approval hovers in low double digits, and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has his career at stake in a constitutional referendum next month opposed by the Five Star Movement, which now holds the mayoralties of Rome and Turin.

The focus was on the right-wing populism prevalent in Northern Europe as opposed to the left-wing variant which has had some success in Southern Europe. One of the running themes of the discussions was the relative roles of culture/identity issues and economic pain and anxiety in populism. Lochocki argued that contrary to conventional wisdom, populists need prosperous times to thrive, as their supporters perceive that national elites are united in "selling out" the country. Their voters despise contestation between elites on national identity matters as well as a lack of contestation on economic policy. Populist success is based on voters' perceptions, not what is really happening. Arguing that it was not inevitable that the AfD would clear the 5 percent threshold to make it into the Bundestag next fall, Lochocki noted that Merkel's government has reversed its refugee policy in accordance with public wishes, but hasn't yet communicated that vividly. He argues that the center will hold in Germany, which will maintain a stable center-right-led government, and that if Alain Juppé wins Les Républicains' primary in France, the European Union's Franco-German tandem could be strengthened.

Caldwell said that while economic changes in the 1980s and 1990s hurt people too, societies had greater offsetting resources i.e. "to build a hospital in a town that loses a mill," which is no longer the case. He argued that while the United States is rhetorically polarized, Trump was a reaction to, not a product of the Republican Party, perceived by Trump's supporters as unable to stop Democratic policies. He said Trump's "build a wall" argument may sound stupid, but the previous U.S. elite discussion has focused on "comprehensive immigration reform," supported by George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Marco Rubio alike and boiling down to getting tough on illegal immigration while actually increasing immigration — not exactly what the right's voters want.

Citing Princeton University professor Jan-Werner Müller's argument that populists are antipluralist, claiming "they and they alone represent the people" and "other political competitors are essentially illegitimate," I asked whether Europe's prominent populist groups such as the AfD and FN were a threat to democracy. Lochocki said the answer to that question tended to depend on one's political views. Most conservatives would see right-wing populists as threats to liberalism but not democracy — democracy should respond to people's views.

Both Lochocki and Caldwell noted that populist and right-wing parties failed when they failed to keep steady media access — like Die Republikaner in Germany, which drew about 10 percent support in polls in 1989. Caldwell noted that AfD chairwoman Frauke Petry has explained that when she says outrageous things (sound like anyone?) she is sometimes then asked to explain. Lochocki said common refrain of AfD voters was "you don't listen to my demands, you call me a Nazi." This echoed a point made by George Mason University professor Justin Gest, who recently spoke at another Academy event on his latest book The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigration and Inequality. Gest notes that respondents "often preface their most candid thoughts to me by stating 'I'm not a racist, but...'... Racism is perceived to be a 'mute button,'" the disclaimer an "exhortation to listen and not dismiss or invalidate the claims of a group that feels marginalized." The media's power to legitimize or delegitimize grievances — which are, of course, based on perceptions as much as reality — is indeed a lesson of this election season.

The close U.S. race also raises the question of what happens when populists win? Hungary and Poland are troubling examples, as is the post-Brexit referendum rise in hate crime in the United Kingdom. During the discussion, Transatlantic Academy fellow Yascha Mounk questioned whether "illiberal democracy" was a stable state or bound to be a transitional step on the way to authoritarianism, as in Russia and Turkey. The tensions between rights-based liberal democracy on one side and popular sovereignty on the other are an old story, but of renewed relevance in our interesting times. Mounk posited in a recent article that "Over the next decades, much of the world will face a tragic choice between illiberal democracy, or democracy without rights, and undemocratic liberalism, or rights without democracy."

This is a tragic choice indeed. In my view at least, both political liberalism and democracy are requisite for political legitimacy — and for a society which enables its people to thrive with their fundamental rights protected. Populists threaten both. And their success, whether by gaining dominance or simply playing a significant role as spoiler in any given country, has very real human costs.

[JKN93]

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/taloussanomat/art-2000002504949.html

Euroopan pankkieliitti huolissaan populismin noususta: "Emme halua nationalismin tielle"

Populismin nousu kehittyneissä maissa heikentää kasvunäkymiä, totesivat Frankfurtissa tavanneet eurooppalaiset pankkiirit.

Populismin nousu kehittyneissä maissa repii Euroopan poliittista kenttää, horjuttaa markkinoita ja heikentää kasvunäkymiä, luettelivat Frankfurtissa tavanneet suurten eurooppalaisten pankkien johtajat....

[Lalli IsoTalo]

http://www.verkkouutiset.fi/politiikka/mepit%20breibart%20facebook-57801

– Nyt on sellainen hetki, että pitää todeta, että EU-projekti on erittäin vakavassa vaarassa.

On käynnissä sellainen prosessi että oksat pois.

Hautala kaipaa keinoja vastata propagandamedioiden leviämiseen ...

Breitbart News on se keino.

...lainsäädännön kautta voi olla vaikeaa vaikuttaa Facebookin tarjoamiin sisältöihin.

[JKN93]

Transatlantistit huolissaan populismista:
http://www.gmfus.org/blog/2016/11/07/weathering-storm-talking-european-populism-eve-us-election
http://www.gmfus.org/blog/2016/11/09/allies-wonder-what-will-remain-sacred-trumps-administration
http://www.gmfus.org/blog/2016/11/10/what-europeans-should-want-trump-administration

[JKN93]

EU:n Donald Tusk pelkää populistien turmelevan liberaalindemokratian,EU:n ja Lännen...
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/10/13-tusk-speech-epc/

European Council - Council of the European Union

Speech by President Donald Tusk at the European Policy Centre conference

I feel really honoured to be invited by you, especially since today we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the EPC. There is no better way of doing this than by having a common serious and realistic reflection on the future of Europe. Frankly speaking, I also feel a little uncomfortable in the role of a speaker, instead of listening to your advice. The role of a listener would be for sure more natural today. But as you know well, politicians who are able to - and who want to listen to people wiser than them, are still a very rare commodity. But you have taken the risk of listening to my remarks, which I appreciate very much indeed. When I gave my first policy statement ten years ago, as Prime Minister of Poland, I spoke for nearly three hours. One of the commentators correctly observed that had my speech been as wise as it was long, it would have been one of the best in Polish history. From that moment on, I always speak briefly, which doesn't necessarily mean - wisely. Today, I will also be brief.

But before I begin, I would again like to express my gratitude and deep respect for Herman Van Rompuy, who is not only my predecessor and president of the EPC, but also my friend. When two years ago you handed me the little brass bell, a symbol of our presidential power, (the word "power" is in this context a delicate overstatement), I said I was your greatest admirer. Not just because you supported me as your successor. To be honest, I had absolutely no idea what I was getting into. Back then we all admired you for helping to steer us, to steer Europe out of the storm.

For five years - as one of the Prime Ministers around the table - I witnessed your skills: creating compromises; finding solutions; establishing trust, among often tough characters, hardly angels. To tell you the truth, it isn't any better today. Yes: Herman Van Rompuy in fact personifies traditional European political principles, which are also very important to me: trust, common sense, moderation and decency. We all thank you for your excellent work, Herman. We miss you.

Unfortunately, your successes did not put a definite end to European problems. Subsequent crises appeared on the horizon. And please do not link this directly with my taking office as President of the European Council. The migration crisis, the still unresolved dilemmas of the eurozone, lasting tensions in eastern Ukraine, Brexit - this is our daily bread. Before I say a few words about Brexit - the most debated subject both in London and on the continent - allow me to share with you a more general reflection.

The most serious crisis of  modern times is the weakening, if not the breakdown, of faith in the durability and purpose of traditional values, which are a foundation of the European Union and, more broadly, of the whole political community of the West. The West in civilizational, not geographical terms. These are the values which bind all the main ideological currents in Europe: liberalism, conservatism and socialism. Human rights, civil liberties, including the freedom of speech and religion, free market and a competitive economy based on private property, reasonable and fair redistribution of goods, restrictions on power resulting from rules and tradition, tolerance and political pluralism; my generation knows this catalogue by heart. I do not need to remind you that the creation of the European Union was a response to a historic catastrophe. The source of this catastrophe was the questioning of those values and treating national egoisms, the use of violence and the unlimited right of the stronger to dictate conditions for the weaker as the norm.

As Stefan Zweig wrote in those days: "It is an iron law that those who will be caught up in the great movements determining the course of their times always fail to recognise them in their early stages."

There is no point comparing these two periods. I only recall his words because today, in the midst of dramatic events of which we are participants as well as witnesses, we lack the will and the time for a more profound diagnosis of a great risk - different from the one we know from the past, but still great. Today, too many people give in freely to the flow of events, without even trying to recognise the essence or scale of the threat.

The threat today is that of the disintegration of Europe, in a political and ideological sense. It is no coincidence that very often those who question liberal democracy are the same ones who call for the break-up of the European Union. It is not surprising, since the Union is not only a political organisation which restricts national egoisms and eliminates violence as a basis for relations between countries, it is also a unique territory of freedom.

You will have noticed that the anti-liberal virus produces similar symptoms: both in Europe and beyond. Its carriers dislike the Union, so they are happy about Brexit. They don't want trans-Atlantic solidarity, so they promote isolationism. They look up to Putin and support Trump.

They are becoming louder and louder in increasing numbers. In Europe, we see them moving from the political periphery onto the main stage, often relying on support from political allies outside Europe who are already in power. One of their defining features is that they do not offer anything positive, instead feeding only on our weaknesses, conflicts, and the mood of uncertainty.

They proclaim a need for total change, they want to subvert the political order we call liberal democracy. Change for the sake of change has become their fetish. As the leader of Alternative für Deutschland said, commenting on the presidential campaign in the US, and I quote: "it might not be better under Trump, but at least with him there is the chance to change."

What they lack is positive ideas and designs of concrete solutions. But what they do not lack is the energy and determination in their march for influence and power. It is remarkable how all too often politicians of the moderate centre in comparison to them come across as listless, unwilling to fight, with no faith in their own convictions. As if they've fallen into a trap of fatalism, which they have no strength or desire to free themselves from. And we remember from the past that in the most dramatic moment of our history, in the 1930s, the advocates of a liberal order gave up virtually without a fight, even though they had all the cards in their hands. Ordinary people turned their backs on them, seeing how weak and hesitant they were. People didn't turn away from freedom because they were fed up with it. No, they simply lost faith that the freedom camp was able to put a stop to evil, however they understood it. They no longer believed that the moderate centre was a guarantee of security. And I am sure you remember who took their place.

I categorically reject this fatalistic approach. I categorically reject this temptation to give in to these trends. I do not accept arguments about the decadence of Europe and the West, because I deeply believe that we have built together a world which, despite its imperfections, is still the best of worlds. We must prove, however, every single day, that liberal democracy doesn't have to be a synonym of weakness. It is worth keeping in mind the words of Blaise Pascal, "Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical." To paraphrase him: liberal democracy without force is powerless, even pathetic.

This is how people interpreted our actions, or rather our lack of action, in the first months of the migration crisis. They saw every day that we were incapable or unwilling to apply the rules and procedures that we had established ourselves. There was not only a lack of realism or rational assessment, but above all, a lack of determination to enforce the law. This became the main reason for the surge in popularity of radicals throughout Europe.

When it comes to migration, we are slowly turning the corner. Because we have rejected the fatalistic approach, expressed in the simple declaration: "There are too many of them to stop them". People are ready to trust us again, as long as we show that we are capable of regaining control, that it is us who once again set the conditions and procedures on our borders.

It's a similar case with free trade. The emotions and confusion surrounding TTIP and CETA are also a kind of fuel for eurosceptics and radicals. And it is up to us whether we maintain Europe's position as the world's centre of free trade. Most people know that free trade is in Europe's interest, but they also know what they want from their leaders negotiating those agreements, namely the protection of European interests. They want to believe and to know that we are able to dictate our own conditions, because free trade must also mean fair trade.

For the last three years, trade ministers and hundreds of experts have been racking their brains trying to answer questions such as: should the EU have the right to defend itself against unfair trade practices by whatever means are necessary and acceptable within the framework of the World Trade Organisation? I would like to put a stop to this endless deliberation. Because we have the right, we have the duty, and we have the capabilities.

Next week already I will try to convince as many European leaders as possible to take the same approach. An EU which does not have the tools to defend itself against trade hooligans will not build support for free trade, which will lead to Europe ultimately dropping out of global competition. Either we demonstrate that we are able to defend our interests, or the political winners will again be the populists and isolationists.

Finally, let's move on to Brexit. As for the negotiations, the situation is pretty clear. Its framework will be set out by the European Council - that is by the guidelines foreseen in the Treaty. Our task will be to protect the interests of the EU as a whole and the interests of each of the 27 member states. And also to stick unconditionally to the Treaty rules and fundamental values. By this I mean, inter alia, the conditions for access to the single market with all four freedoms. There will be no compromises in this regard.

When it comes to the essence of Brexit, it was largely defined in the UK during the referendum campaign. We all remember the promises, which cumulated in the demand to "take back control". Namely the "liberation" from European jurisdiction, a "no" to the freedom of movement or further contributions to the EU budget. This approach has definitive consequences, both for the position of the UK government and for the whole process of negotiations. Regardless of magic spells, this means a de facto will to radically loosen relations with the EU, something that goes by the name of "hard Brexit".

This scenario will in the first instance be painful for Britons. In fact, the words uttered by one of the leading campaigners for Brexit and proponents of the "cake philosophy" was pure illusion: that one can have the EU cake and eat it too. To all who believe in it, I propose a simple experiment. Buy a cake, eat it, and see if it is still there on the plate.

The brutal truth is that Brexit will be a loss for all of us. There will be no cakes on the table. For anyone. There will be only salt and vinegar. If you ask me if there is any alternative to this bad scenario, I would like to tell you that yes, there is. And I think it is useless to speculate about "soft Brexit" because of all the reasons I've mentioned. These would be purely theoretical speculations. In my opinion, the only real alternative to a "hard Brexit" is "no Brexit". Even if today hardly anyone believes in such a possibility. We will conduct the negotiations in good faith, defend the interests of the EU 27, minimise the costs and seek the best possible deal for all. But as I have said before, I am afraid that no such outcome exists that will benefit either side. Of course it is and can only be for the UK to assess the outcome of the negotiations and determine if Brexit is really in their interest. Paraphrasing Hannah Arendt's words: "a full understanding of all the consequences of the political process is the only way to reverse the irreversible flow of history". Thank you.

[Roope]

Speech by President Donald Tusk at the European Policy Centre conference
...
This is how people interpreted our actions, or rather our lack of action, in the first months of the migration crisis. They saw every day that we were incapable or unwilling to apply the rules and procedures that we had established ourselves. There was not only a lack of realism or rational assessment, but above all, a lack of determination to enforce the law. This became the main reason for the surge in popularity of radicals throughout Europe.

Tämä itsekritiikki ei anna likimainkaan totuudenmukaista kuvaa tapahtuneesta. Politiikkojen toiminta oli paljon pahempaa, Euroopan kannalta itsetuhoista, kun Merkel johtotähtenä houkutteli ihmisiä lähtemään liikkeelle Turkista ja Syyriasta kohti Saksaa ja EU:n komissio teki parhaansa estääkseen jäsenmaita sulkemasta rajoja tulijavirroilta.

When it comes to migration, we are slowly turning the corner. Because we have rejected the fatalistic approach, expressed in the simple declaration: "There are too many of them to stop them". People are ready to trust us again, as long as we show that we are capable of regaining control, that it is us who once again set the conditions and procedures on our borders.

"He" ovat kyllä osoittaneet, että rajoja voidaan haluttaessa kontrolloida, mutta "he" ovat käyttäneet resurssit ihmisten haalimiseen Libyan rannikolta Eurooppaan. Ykköstavoite ei ole laittoman liikenteen vähentäminen, kuten pitäisi, vaan sellaisen EU-järjestelmän rakentaminen, että laittomasti tulleet voidaan siirtää ulkorajoilta pakkokiintiöiden avulla vastentahtoisiin jäsenmaihin.

[Jääpää]

NATO-kiimaa kokevalle Virkkuselle suosittelisin uutisten lukemista muistakin lähteistä kuin HS Pravdasta. Suomella on mahdollisesti nimittäin edessään ihan uusi ongelma, jossa riittää kyllä pohdittavaa, eli aiommeko käydä täällä pohjoisessa taloussotaa vielä siinäkin vaiheessa, kun USA ja Venäjä liittoutuvat ja alkavat ratkoa ongelmia yhdessä. Jos emme, niin Virkkusen kannattaisikin nyt pohtia NATO-jäsenyyden sijaan sitä, miten hallitus voisi peruuttaa pakotepäätökset menettämättä täysin kasvojaan.

Ai per.., että alkoi hymyillyttämään!  Henna "Pakkoruotsi" Virkkunen ja Jyrki "Kurwa" Katainen seuraamassa katseella, kun Suomen läpi jyrää Amerikan liputettua rekkaa Hangosta Vaalimaalle ja kyljessä joku teksti:
"Tämä juusto on tehty Ameriikassa, urheitten ja vapaitten maassa, toisille urheille ja vapaille
Venäjällä, sekä ystävälleni Vladimir Putinille!
            Cheese say Donald! "

Valio vaatii tietenkin selitystä, mutku Euu ja kansaiväliset sopimukset..
Ja tää ainakin kuuluu ulkoministeri Soinille. Tai sille Lindströmille, tuo ne nakkejakin!!!

Milloin tuosta Virkkusesta on tullut joku sotilasasiain asiatuntija? Onhan nää siis t o s i yleispäteviä, mutta Hennuli?  Nyt ootte herrat määränny ihan väärän koiran haukkumaa, eihän tuo mene läpi edes...jaa, mutta siellähän sillä vasta onkin, samaten Kataisella, vahvat näytöt:

http://jussiniinisto.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/89539-eduskunta-kielsi-jalkavakimiinat

[hattiwatti]

EU:n Donald Tusk pelkää populistien turmelevan liberaalindemokratian,EU:n ja Lännen...
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/10/13-tusk-speech-epc/

Alottaisi vain omasta maastaan;  http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.fi/2016/01/putinization-of-poland-part-of-far.html

Window on eurasia on toki erittäin Venäjä-vihamielinen uutiskollaasi-blogi, joten artikkeli on hauska.

Huvittavaa Puolan "putinisaatiossa" on, että kyseessähän on öbaut maailman ryssävihaisin maa jonka touhu Kiovassa hyvin aktiivista Ukrainan kriisin lietsonnassa, koska maan länsiosat olivat osa Puolaa. Mutta kuten valveutuneet politiikan tutkijat ovat huomanneet "putinismi" tarkoittaa lähinnä liberaalin demokratian vastapoolia, johon liittyy kansallinen suvereniteetti, ja tähän kategoriaan kuuluu yhtä lailla Viktor Orban kuin Le Penkin, jopa valkoisen talon isäntä.

Kun Halla-aho pari vuotta sitten foorumilla ilmoitti Bryssel-ketjussa "en vihaa EU:ta niin paljoa, että näkisin putinismin varteenotettavana vaihtoehtona" joka ainakin paljasti sen, että ajatus itsenäisestä kansallisvaltiosta ei kuulu hänen näkemysvalikoimaansa. Luulisin, tuon jutun olevan suoraa toistoa mitä on kuullut ECR-viruksen saastuttamissa vallan saleissa, jossa liberaali kansat hävittävä demokratia perustellaan brittikonservatiivien suosimalla, Thatcherin lanseeramalla "there is no alternative" logiikalla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative

Eräs kymmenestä syystä, jonka vuoksi on pakko aina palata Halliksen lausuntojen ruotimiseen, on toki että hän tahattomasti paljastaa mitä itseään korkeammat valtaeliitit ajattelevat, kun myötäilee ja toistelee niiden jargonia out-of-context tyyliin ymmärtämättä mitä se pohjimmiltaan tarkoitaa. Harvassahan ne lähteet ovat mistä me maan matoset saisimme tämänkaltaista tietoa meitä hallitsevilta tahoilta.

Tässähän klassikkoartikkelissa koko liberaalin / epäliberaalin demokratian ajatus revitään auki, ja kerrotaan miksi se omituinen "putinismi"  on EU-eliitin ideologinen vihollinen, kommunismi-kapitalismi vastakkainasettelun sorruttua. https://openrevolt.info/2014/03/11/alexander-dugin-the-war-on-russia-in-its-ideological-dimension/