Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
VanemadUuemad
'However numerous actors mimicking Russia’s messages have joined in, making it difficult to untangle what’s the Kremlin’s propaganda, Western far right misinformation and authentic political discourse.' - Laas Leivat
I was waiting for this part II. Thanks very much Laas, for an even-keeled article!
Ending, appropriately, on a skeptical note. That certainly, at least for me, shows your genuine efforts to be objective in these vexing times. Kaldkriips, in this unprecedentedly(?) crazily polarized world. Kaldkriips, in which it is so difficult to separate real info from fake info, and sincere journalism from the knee-jerk partisanship. In which manipulation is relatively easy, if 80% of people only read headlines. Never seen anything like it.
That being said, and hoping very much to avoid a long tedious screed (which I'm quite capable of), I would like to see an arvamusartikkel from you about Estonia's 'far right', that you did in the beginning of your article offer some leeway to.
In that EKRE has not been overtly Russia-positive. I.e. I can't recall the entire wording, but you did make a positive, or at least forgiving, distinction for Eesti, as compared to your list of other country's 'far right' parties with alleged 'ties'.
Now while I am no fan of any kind of authoritarianism, and populism can devolve into the same, nonetheless living in Eesti these past 22 years I can appreciate the sentiments of those who feel that centrism is a kind of compromised cop-out and capitulation. to what exactly?
Answer: To the fashion of globalist aspirations. Actually quite detrimental to national sovereignty, that the Europe has no time/ inclination for. Whole essays can be written on the semi-taboo subject.
Estonia is, indeed, stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one side we have the ever-looming threat of annexation and/ or undue influence by authoritarian, call it 'Putin-Russia'. On the other side we have the European Union with troubles of it's own.
Including, importantly for us, a definite bias against national self-determination. Calling it 'anachronistic' (-Herman von Rompuy, first permanent President of the European Council). Suggesting the future is a federal Europe. Just check out the efforts of Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Manifesto For a Post-National Revolution in Europe. This isn't marginal, rather it's mainstream stuff.
Is this the best we can do?
People in Estonia are polarized. Some are quite afraid. Others, especially in the salaried 'ambassadorial class', eagerly embrace whatever it is that Europe is offering. Do we need the EU, of just NATO? Ongoing questions. Going it alone is out of the question. Most everyone agrees on that.
I am not going to try to summarize this difficult conundrum here, in this writing. I just want to offer a counterpoint, in hopes of inspiring further inquiry.
One accusation worth investigating is that the 'far right' likes of EKRE while not longing for the 'paneurasian' vision of the future that you mentioned in association with Steve Bannon, is, rather, hoping simply for a more conservative one. One that isn't godless. Is not entirely secular (as what is coming on automatic-pilot from Brussels, with all it's attendant one-size-fits-all politically correct excesses). And in this, Russia, while at least outwardly respectful of the Orthodox Church, may feel to some as sympathetic.
Is this some kind of secret affinity? What an awful paradox.
Respectfully, and in admiration of his steadfast efforts over the years, I would like to hear Laas Leivat's thoughts. And anyone else's, who has thought deeply on these subjects. Difficult situation.
Parimate soovidega, Lembit.
I was waiting for this part II. Thanks very much Laas, for an even-keeled article!
Ending, appropriately, on a skeptical note. That certainly, at least for me, shows your genuine efforts to be objective in these vexing times. Kaldkriips, in this unprecedentedly(?) crazily polarized world. Kaldkriips, in which it is so difficult to separate real info from fake info, and sincere journalism from the knee-jerk partisanship. In which manipulation is relatively easy, if 80% of people only read headlines. Never seen anything like it.
That being said, and hoping very much to avoid a long tedious screed (which I'm quite capable of), I would like to see an arvamusartikkel from you about Estonia's 'far right', that you did in the beginning of your article offer some leeway to.
In that EKRE has not been overtly Russia-positive. I.e. I can't recall the entire wording, but you did make a positive, or at least forgiving, distinction for Eesti, as compared to your list of other country's 'far right' parties with alleged 'ties'.
Now while I am no fan of any kind of authoritarianism, and populism can devolve into the same, nonetheless living in Eesti these past 22 years I can appreciate the sentiments of those who feel that centrism is a kind of compromised cop-out and capitulation. to what exactly?
Answer: To the fashion of globalist aspirations. Actually quite detrimental to national sovereignty, that the Europe has no time/ inclination for. Whole essays can be written on the semi-taboo subject.
Estonia is, indeed, stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one side we have the ever-looming threat of annexation and/ or undue influence by authoritarian, call it 'Putin-Russia'. On the other side we have the European Union with troubles of it's own.
Including, importantly for us, a definite bias against national self-determination. Calling it 'anachronistic' (-Herman von Rompuy, first permanent President of the European Council). Suggesting the future is a federal Europe. Just check out the efforts of Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Manifesto For a Post-National Revolution in Europe. This isn't marginal, rather it's mainstream stuff.
Is this the best we can do?
People in Estonia are polarized. Some are quite afraid. Others, especially in the salaried 'ambassadorial class', eagerly embrace whatever it is that Europe is offering. Do we need the EU, of just NATO? Ongoing questions. Going it alone is out of the question. Most everyone agrees on that.
I am not going to try to summarize this difficult conundrum here, in this writing. I just want to offer a counterpoint, in hopes of inspiring further inquiry.
One accusation worth investigating is that the 'far right' likes of EKRE while not longing for the 'paneurasian' vision of the future that you mentioned in association with Steve Bannon, is, rather, hoping simply for a more conservative one. One that isn't godless. Is not entirely secular (as what is coming on automatic-pilot from Brussels, with all it's attendant one-size-fits-all politically correct excesses). And in this, Russia, while at least outwardly respectful of the Orthodox Church, may feel to some as sympathetic.
Is this some kind of secret affinity? What an awful paradox.
Respectfully, and in admiration of his steadfast efforts over the years, I would like to hear Laas Leivat's thoughts. And anyone else's, who has thought deeply on these subjects. Difficult situation.
Parimate soovidega, Lembit.
“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
One of the three fundamental principles of modern physics is: "Future is not determined unequivacally by the past. Even the most rigid regularities we see are ultimately statistical".
I also like to add the biological fact that no two brains are the same; hence also their contents.
Apart from having views, some contradictory, like outlined in the artcle above, all is on the table, and 350+ miljon european brains with all their contradictions eventually evolve as history would. At the fall of the Roman Empire the mutiltude of nations that suddenly had been left alone eventually proceeded to mingle again in the German-Roman Empire and Renaissans was borne. Is this mingling of paradoxes presenting a new opportunity that leads us to a new Renaissans in the European future?
I also like to add the biological fact that no two brains are the same; hence also their contents.
Apart from having views, some contradictory, like outlined in the artcle above, all is on the table, and 350+ miljon european brains with all their contradictions eventually evolve as history would. At the fall of the Roman Empire the mutiltude of nations that suddenly had been left alone eventually proceeded to mingle again in the German-Roman Empire and Renaissans was borne. Is this mingling of paradoxes presenting a new opportunity that leads us to a new Renaissans in the European future?
Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.