The US. The EU is a bureaucratic institution, not a democratic one, and arguably doesn't have more legitimacy than its current bureaucrats at any time. At this time there are 0 people worth talking about in the Commission or the council.
Despite the flaws of its president, the US has democratic checks and balances
> The US. The EU is a bureaucratic institution, not a democratic one,
The US has a democratic system where the President is ultimately voted for by an unelected electoral college who can refuse to vote for the candidate their state voted for and has ended up with the candidate with most votes loosing.
Then said president can change the countries top court on obviously political lines and re-interpret existing laws and the constitution.
> At this time there are 0 people worth talking about in the Commission or the council
The European Commission has no need to play popularity contests, it's accountable to the heads of governments, not randoms on social media.
The US doesn't have popular voting system. There are good reasons for it, and in no way does it make the US non-democratic.
I don't particularly like the Electoral College - but the history and the cases when members voted against the people are interesting and in some (many?) cases, examples of checks and balances.
Checks and balances don't always align with your desires. That's a feature of democracy not a failure.
> The US doesn't have popular voting system. There are good reasons for it, and in no way does it make the US non-democratic.
Presumably if my votes counted a million times more than yours, you wouldn't say it's still a democracy, right? The extreme here is obviously a single ruler whose vote counts more than everyone else's combined. Where do you draw the line here?
You are saying, if it’s not direct popular vote, it’s not democratic. Germany and the US are then no democracies by this standard, and I am sure there are much more. I believe UK also not.
That’s your definition, but then I’d like to understand what you call these form of government and how you differentiate from a country like russia, which is also holding elections.
The way you phrase it is very binary: either a country has popular vote or it’s the same as the least democratic countries.
> The way you phrase it is very binary: either a country has popular vote or it’s the same as the least democratic countries.
No. I merely pointed out that we have two extremes and that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and thus asked where the parent commenter draws the line. That's it. I never suggested anything about where I believe the line should be drawn.
Not sure what line that is. The line after which one decides to leave the country? But the voting system of country rarely changes. Or is it the line separating the good from the bad countries? In which case, yes, it’s reductive and manichean.
The line at which you would stop feeling comfortable calling the country democratic. Again, I'm not judging, just asking a direct question, so no need to put other words in my mouth.
Many states now have "faithless elector" laws that require the electors to vote according to the populace's expectations of how the elector will vote in the college.
> Checks and balances don't always align with your desires.
Sure, but that's not the issue with current US administration, and it's dishonest to say that.
The issue is that checks and balances are literally, indisputably, being ignored. Ignoring court orders and doing illegal things is bad, actually. When Jackson defied Congress we at least had the decency to try to impeach his ass.
The current US administration is not only grossly incompetent and unqualified, as seen by the signal scandals, but they're also openly hostile to the democratic institutions of this country.
The EU actively engages in selecting and canceling heads of governments in EU countries. There has been 0 cases where the head of the commision was held accountable for something. Actually the current head has been found guilty by the EU court for hiding text messages. Who is going to hold her accountable and how ?
I m all for the EU but defending its despicable leadership with arguments that reverse reality is not doing any favors to anyone
These two are questions asked by what I can infer members of the parliament. They are not official statements of the EU Parliament. Anyone can ask any question but that does not make it true.
Can you explain why you linked to these two links?a
"Thierry Breton, the European Union’s former internal market commissioner, admitted in a French TV interview at the end of last week that the Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR) bowed to EU pressure. It annulled the country’s presidential elections last month, following the first-round victory of the Eurosceptic and anti-NATO, right-wing populist candidate, Călin Georgescu."
Where does he says the CCR bowed to the EU pressure? I followed the link that says _admitted_ and there goes to a Romanian website and they make a similar claim but as far as I can see he talks about applying the laws to protect against interference and not about making CCR decide something.
A link to other website that also does not provide any evidence is not evidence even if it looks like a citation.
> It annulled the country’s presidential elections last month, following the first-round victory of the Eurosceptic and anti-NATO, right-wing populist candidate, Călin Georgescu.
You mean the fellow who illegally received undeclared external foreign funding? More concretely, from Russia, a declared state sponsor of terrorism?
Didn't the current president of the US say that his 2016 election was stolen and triggered an insurrection, and then proceed to pardon those who attacked democratic institutions? Isn't he now seeking to dismantle all the checks and balances, all while doing crypto dumps, enabling him to receive money from undisclosed sources?
This is your democratic reference?
> At this time there are 0 people worth talking about in the Commission or the council.
What's with the cult of personality? Why do you need someone worth talking about? For example, everyone talks about Trump for all the wrong reasons, does that mean that's worth it?
It just sounds like you don't know much about the EU.
Trump will leave office in 2028 just like any other US president. The only difference between now and then is extreme polarization all over the world because a lot of emerging problems.
I am originally from Russia and I cannot read this seriously. Yes, there are problems in US democracy. But it still works and LIGHT YEARS ahead of what you can see in Russia. Those comparisons with Nazi Germany and other oppressive regimes are just insane. They devalue words, and you just won't find the right ones when shit really hits the fan.
I am also from Russia. Since this apparently gives me authority to speak on these matters, I can confidently say that what’s happening in the US today looks remarkably like Putin’s consolidation of power. How long until Congress is nothing more than an executive rubber stamp like the Duma? The judicial system is currently functioning as the only check against executive overreach, and it’s just a matter of time until injunctions are nullified or ignored as a matter of course.
I agree it’s not light years rather normal years away from Russian political system. Maybe not 5 years, but lets say 10-15 years of this shit and the US will look a lot like Russia (from a government form perspective). If Vance takes over after Trump, we will miss Trump I have a feeling.
But I am not from Russia, though part of my family is. I guess I am then only a half expert ;)
> Trump will leave office in 2028 just like any other US president.
Trump has been openly playing with the idea of a third term, and has spoken about ways of achieving this. What makes you so sure he will leave office in 2028?
> I am originally from Russia and I cannot read this seriously. Yes, there are problems in US democracy. But it still works and LIGHT YEARS ahead of what you can see in Russia.
I don't understand where you're getting the idea of comparing with Russia, Nazi Germany or other oppresive regimes. I asked the question about what other countries and organizations are in a better position to lecture about democracy.
Acknowledging that the USA is currently in an institutional and democratic crisis doesn't mean they're Russia; it means they're on the wrong trajectory.
> Trump has been openly playing with the idea of a third term
Because Trump is just a blabbermouth. Sorry, but people are just indoctrinated from both sides. You can check prediction markets and see the real odds of Trump not leaving the office. Yep, there is a chance, but IMO it's around 5% max.
> I don't understand where you're getting the idea of comparing with ...
Yes, I understand that US has democracy crisis. And so has the Europe! The problem is that there are no longer healthy examples in the world, except maybe smaller countries. Democracy as a thing is dying, but US are still holding the torch IMO.
This is a common debate tactic from Trump supporters and it just doesn't work. If your evidence for Trump being okay is that he's actually a liar so we shouldn't take threats seriously, that doesn't speak well on Trump. And, actually, it reflects very poorly on you. Why are you supporting someone who you knowingly admit is a liar? Why is your support founded on the assumption that what you're supporting will not be implemented? It makes no sense. It makes other's question your decision making abilities.
But, more to the point, much of what Trump has said and done has been downplayed until it actually happens. We can't just play pretend and cosplay Hellen Keller here. The insurrection, project 2025, these things are real and did actually happen. Despite being downplayed repeatedly. I mean, every Trump supporter on Earth has been calling Project 2025 anti-republican propaganda (but it's written by and for republican leadership?), and now that many part of it are being implemented verbatim - surprise! - it's what everyone wanted all along.
We cannot continue to downplay and underestimate this administration. They will do illegal things, they will threaten democracy, they will ignore court orders. If we cannot comes to terms with that reality, then we have no choice but to allow them to do these things.
There's been plenty of indications that's not true. Trump has been floating a third term and a Trump regime with his children. He said the election was stolen. He tried to steal it himself. You are basically saying "Well TODAY the United States is fine!" but if you look at the trendline Russia is basically still shit, and we now have an insurrectionist as a President whose spending a significant portion of his time destroying American institutions as far beyond repair as he can.
The checks and balances are there. But they don't always "check and balance" the way you want them to.
Same in the EU. In this very comment section there are people abdicating to the courts, saying they'll block this proposal. The EUs checks and balance also work slowly and not always in your favor.
I find it odd that one needs to live in more than one country to be able to make a judgment on the use of the adjective better.
But I'll take the bait, let's say someone who lived in Syria during the Assad rule and then changed to the US, will that person come to that realization?
Any institution that does not kill thousands every year:
Annual Deaths (Recent Years):
- Mediterranean Sea 2,000–3,000+ (60% drownings)
- Pushbacks/Frontex Several hundred (2,000 deaths linked to Frontex actions)
- Land Borders/Camps Dozens to hundreds (Winter peaks, underreported)
There are by far too few NGOs or journalists looking into the despicable practices of the EU - but we Europeans definitely should not sit oh the high horse and preach about human rights to anyone.
It is a disgrace what we as a European people let our elected officials get away with.
Australia hat a similar situation. They cut that number down to basically zero when they publicly announced that no one entering Australia that way would ever be able to settle in Australia in any way.
Even if you put all the planes in hangers, there are always other softer targets to attack. Fuel depots, weapons storage, barracks, factories, rail lines, etc. Not to mention the list of non-military targets, if you wanted to go that way.
Well, all of this needs physical protection. Just walls thick enough, anti-drone nets, and AA guns too. Drone attacks from now on will be a new tax to add to the cost of all infrastructure.
> The punished group may often have no direct association with the perpetrator other than living in the same area and can not be assumed to exercise control over the perpetrator's actions.
Here, the point that's raised is: isn't there any collective responsibility for a group of people that support and re-elect a political leader with 87% of votes, who was, and promised to continue engaging in a war of genocide?
Notice that I'm being cynical here, referencing the 87% vote count. While it might be a theatrical display, the regime likes to preach about the legitimacy of Democracy (especially how Ukraine is conducting its democracy), and Russians accepted these results - so even if it's not actually 87%, it's still high.
Also, let's not forget that a lot of the invading force is composed of individuals with entrepreneurial ambitions; they're contractors, not conscripts, meaning people who sign up to get well paid to go to Ukraine and kill as many Ukrainians as possible, just because they're Ukrainians. The latest estimates of +950.000 Russian casualties point that it's not just a few people willing to do this, but a lot.
So the question that I want to ask you is, at what point does collective responsibility apply?
Two points to clarify:
- This is an honest question, because I don't know the answer to it, but I just don't think that "there should never be collective responsibility" is a good answer.
>So the question that I want to ask you is, at what point does collective responsibility apply?
There’s no such point. This is the main reason why Russia is still not under full trade embargo and Russian citizens can still get visas. Justice is a fundamental human right, so sanctions always target individuals after some due process and may be repealed in court.
Well, I disagree; the people of a nation contributing to and supporting genocide are responsible in part.
> This is the main reason why Russia is still not under full trade embargo and Russian citizens can still get visas.
I don't think those are the main reasons:
- Embargo would have a global economic impact and would have to be militarily enforced; Also, it wouldn't be enforced everywhere as Russia has borders with countries that aren't sanctioning them.
- As far as I know, Russian citizens can't get Visas everywhere; several European countries have banned all sorts of visas for Russian citizens.
In fact, there's a case to be made that Russians are being collectively held accountable, for example:
- Sanctions;
- Seizing of Russian State assets (they don't belong to Putin or the regime, these assets actually belong to Russians);
>Well, I disagree; the people of a nation contributing to and supporting genocide are responsible in part.
Why exactly do you think human right for justice doesn’t apply here? Do you include in this group everyone, even those who were not able to or actively tried to stop it? What is their responsibility exactly? If not, how do you make the distinction?
Then what country are you talking about? Russia is not committing genocide in Ukraine, so it must be Israel and Gaza? But even in that case, with dramatically higher number of civilian casualties and people having more agency in state matters how exactly do you want to hold every Israeli citizen responsible?
>In fact, there's a case to be made that Russians are being collectively held accountable, for example:
- Sanctions;
I don’t understand this part. “To make a case” means to present arguments. You don’t present arguments for sanctions with saying “sanctions”.
> Why exactly do you think human right for justice doesn’t apply here? Do you include in this group everyone, even those who were not able to or actively tried to stop it? What is their responsibility exactly? If not, how do you make the distinction?
Unfortunately, there's no way to separate accomplices from those who don't support it, but what do you expect to be done? Pretend that nothing is happening and that there's no support at all for the war and only one man, Putin, is to blame?
> Then what country are you talking about? Russia is not committing genocide in Ukraine
Well by the definition of genocide and the actions Russia is taking, it is genocide:
- Denial of Ukraine's existence as a sovereign country and as a people (a very clear admission of genocide by Putin in his speech denying the existence of Ukraine - he just happened to fail to achieve it in full).
- The destruction and stealing of cultural artifacts;
- Forcibly transferring and filtering children of Ukraine to Russia;
- Destruction of maternity hospitals, medical facilities, power grid, all with the goal to bring suffering and inflict on Ukrainians conditions of life;
These are elements of the crime of genocide[0]. You might not like that reality, but that's what's happening. It's not about the number of civilian casualties - the Nazi Germany was committing genocide before the Final Solution. I'm not even addressing war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Just speaking of Genocide.
What baffles me is that it's like you don't grasp the scale of what Russia is doing in Ukraine, where 700.000+ children were kidnapped by Russians, there are more than 10.000.000 refugees, and God only knows how many were filtered in Russia.
> I don’t understand this part. “To make a case” means to present arguments. You don’t present arguments for sanctions with saying “sanctions”.
The point I was making is that Sanctions are already an example of collective responsibility. I wasn't making a case for Sanctions, that's self evident by many laws, such as International Law, UN Charter, etc.
>Unfortunately, there's no way to separate accomplices from those who don't support it, but what do you expect to be done?
First of all, there is a way. See EU sanctions. They are targeted because there was an effort put in identifying the accomplices and finding the appropriate way to sanction them precisely. Second, by even contemplating the idea of punishing the innocent by applying the principle of collective responsibility you put yourself on the same level as Russian supporters of war. They do exactly the same to justify the war.
> Denial of Ukraine's existence as a sovereign country and as a people.
This is factually not correct. Russia recognizes Ukrainian ethnicity and Ukrainian language (see e.g. the annexation paperwork) and currently accepts existence of Ukraine as a sovereign non-aligned state. That’s literally their proposal for peace.
> The destruction and stealing of cultural artifacts;
Probably war crime, but not genocide. Ukraine wasn’t particularly careful about cultural artifacts in Russia too.
> Forcibly transferring and filtering children of Ukraine to Russia;
That’s complicated. They did move Ukrainian children from the war zone into Russia. It doesn’t constitute genocide obviously (they received proper care), but may constitute crime in some cases.
> Destruction of maternity hospitals, medical facilities, power grid
War crime. Not genocide.
>These are elements of the crime of genocide[0].
You missed the most important part. The definition actually starts with intent: following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
Russia does not have an intent to destroy Ukrainians as a nation or ethnicity. Without intent every war would be a genocide. E.g. Americans did bomb a hospital in Afghanistan and did kill civilians.
I am aware of the scale of what’s going on there. More than you think.
>700.000+ children were kidnapped by Russians
This number is off by orders of magnitude.
>The point I was making is that Sanctions are already an example of collective responsibility.
Not exactly. They target state and certain actors. Yes, that may make life of ordinary people less comfortable, but this is not the same as when they are applied to a specific person or entity without due process.
> They are targeted because there was an effort put in identifying the accomplices and finding the appropriate way to sanction them precisely.
I'm not talking about sanctioning individuals, I'm talking about sanctioning Russia - visa bans, economic sanctions, seizing assets of the Russian state. That affects people, not a select group of individuals. There were additional sanctions for particular individuals, as you stated.
> This is factually not correct. Russia recognizes Ukrainian ethnicity and Ukrainian language
I can't believe I'm still arguing this in 2025, but here we are, from the dictator himself:
> Vladimir Putin reportedly claimed that “Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? A part of its territory is [in] Eastern Europe, but a[nother] part, a considerable one, was a gift from us!” In his March 18, 2014 speech marking the annexation of Crimea, Putin declared that Russians and Ukrainians “are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus’ is our common source and we cannot live without each other.”[0]
> That’s complicated. They did move Ukrainian children from the war zone into Russia.
It's not complicated at all, they kidnapped children from Ukraine, their state. They could have allowed for humanitarian corridors, they could have requested the UN, or other organizations to take the children back to their parents and guardian, they could have ALREADY RETURNED THE CHILDREN - SINCE 2022.
I'm sorry, but it's absurd that you're trying to wash one of the most despicable crimes of genocide.
> War crime. Not genocide.
According to the definition:
> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;[1]
Russia didn't destroy and brag about destroying Ukraine's power grid in the winter to bring them good health. You don't destroy medical facilities, including children's hospitals and maternity wards to help them thrive.
> You missed the most important part. The definition actually starts with intent: following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
No, it's YOU WHO MISSED THE IMPORTANT part by disregarding Putin's speech with the intent to wipe out Ukraine:
" In a televised address to the nation, Putin explicitly denied that Ukraine had ever had “real statehood,” and said the country was an integral part of Russia’s “own history, culture, spiritual space.”"[2]
There's the intent, Putin own admission of genocide is more than enough, the problem is that it was when he thought Russia could take Kyiv in a few days.
>I can't believe I'm still arguing this in 2025, but here we are, from the dictator himself
Politicians often say a lot of provocative things in interviews. What matters is what they actually do and whether they do it consistently. You pick one quote from an the interview and think it is more important than all the legislative framework and all the peace proposals that were written on paper. I disagree and will not continue, since you are apparently arguing based on beliefs not based on knowledge of the facts.
>It's not complicated at all, they kidnapped children from Ukraine, their state.
As I said, your number of 700k children is wrong by order of magnitude. That number comes from a Russian source, Ukraine has a database of 20k confirmed cases (could be higher by now). Russia annexed Ukrainian territories and offered citizenship to inhabitants. Russia also hosted a number of pro-Russian Ukrainian refugees, some of them children who left the war zone with their parents and preferred to stay in Russia (yes, those people do exist and there's a lot of them). I do not deny abductions, I just say that that number includes very different cases and taking them into account will paint very different picture from "genocide".
>There's the intent, Putin own admission of genocide is more than enough
You are making up things. He did not admit genocide. I did watch that televised address, you just make conclusions from news reports.
> Politicians often say a lot of provocative things in interviews.
Well, it was in the national address when the second invasion kicked off in 2022. So we have the denial of the Ukrainian state and people, while launching an invasion, trying to capture the capital to topple and kill the government - how aren't these actions following the words?
What is more important are the actions - 3 years of bringing death and misery to Ukrainians, all while preaching they're either Russians or they're nothing. There was no peace proposal from Russia that was ever taken seriously by Russia itself.
These are facts.
> As I said, your number of 700k children is wrong by order of magnitude.
The number is between 25.000 and 700.000 - but what's absurd is that you're arguing about thousands of Children. Doesn't matter if it's 100, 1000 or 10.000, it's the genocidal intent behind it to transfer and filter Children from one country to another.
Russia threatened Ukrainians to accept passports or to be ejected from their homes, it's yet another instance of genocide/crimes against humanity[0]
Why were these people, children, women, and the elderly displaced across Russia and not given a safe passage back to their homeland? It's just like when Russia allied with the Nazis to help with the genocide of Poland, by removing people from their land and displacing them far away.
> Russia also hosted a number of pro-Russian Ukrainian refugees
Who are you to say if refugees that have no way to go but to the land of the aggressor are pro-Russian Ukrainians?! What kind of fcked up mentality is that?
You keep trying to wash genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity by arguing about numbers, and hypothetical political, and by trying to change the definitions of the UN - of which Russia is part of. In reality, what defines these horrific crimes is their actions and intent.
> He did not admit genocide. I did watch that televised address,
It's a prime example of corruption, nepotism, subordination, people being jailed, and extradited without prosecution... It's not looking good.
You have a new "deep state" out in the open, composed of billionaires, some of whom got rich through taxpayers' money, you have the President dropping crypto dumps, allowing him to get an influx of cash from undisclosed sources... and isn't he still doing fundraising? For what?
I don't think messaging has improved - maybe on avg. but it's still clearly AI-generated.
The number of companies that "Elevate" services/quality/experiences... It's getting so sloppy.
But a lot of these points are recurring ones over the years, it's just like a rubber band that stretches.
At some point, CEOs will go on LinkedIn ...
"We loved the AI boom and it helped us improve a lot of our processes! But we need human connection, and that's irreplaceable - but now our differentiator is that we have humans reaching out to humans. AI will still be here as a sidekick."
To use a potentially controversial example, Microsoft products (Office, Windows) are still extremely entrenched despite the overwhelming majority of knowledgable people agreeing that they're on a steep downward trajectory and the alternatives have long since surpassed them.. leading to this[0] recent video from Pewdiepie...
reply