They can have the same goals and similar mechanics, but they still are trying to act as democratic countries, and the scale and insolence is still not as big like in Russia or China. I would say its faster or slower going to something what we see in "west", but its not even in half way, mostly thanks to mentality of "west" people.
I fail to see how they bother to try to act as a democracy anymore. It's been decades that they insults us and take europeans for retarded (and they might be right, since it works). However, yes, it is a little different than in Russia and China for it's still not as frontal/brutal, but more viscious and pernicious. Like a French humorist once said : "Dictatorship is "shut the fuck up"; democracy is "keep talking"."
That being said, I think you are naive t o thinkt hat it's still half way... Cash has been monitored more and more under the pretext of fighting criminality (topkek), you have projects similar to social credits which you'll surely see appearing in a light version soon with the problems we face with energy; people's opinion is very rarely respected et caetera.
Okay, and I still see huge difference between You or other "west" people, and someone like Sergey or Igor. Like some time ago, now I would like to recall the Yellow Jackets. I know, You will say: it changed nothing, and police was trying to pacify them with brutal methods. And correct me if im wrong, because I wasnt there, but when I was able to see it in tv or mostly in amator videos on internet, it was big numbers of people.
Yes, there were a lot of them during the first weeks, and many people supported them even if they weren't part of the demonstrations. Does this mean they were looking beyond their own noses? No. They got angry because of the price of oil (funnily, they say nothing when the real price of oil in France is around 2,30€ at the moment (the visible price + the gift Macron gives to Total to give us a """discount""") or that the price of electricity went multiplied by 12times without any good reason in France. After that, they got to talk about the government, but mostly about France and nothign conrtete emerged from that. The rare people who had a good analysis got ridiculed and labeled as conspiracy theorists quickly, and the movement was preyed by all kind of vultures.
I don't see any serious will of "east" people to change anything big in their countries. We have murderous UE, trying to tell You what You should do, and what You shouldnt, like with Italy. And what happened there? Melloni won. In France, wasnt Le Pen able to win? Wasnt she close? Don't You have many people wanting a change? And while not in mainstream... You really dont have indepentend media in internet? I bet You have far easier access those, than You would have in Russia.
That might be the only fundamental difference, although French peopel,f or instance, always wake up very late (too late), they do wake up and express their anger quite often. From what I've seen, Chineses, Japaneses, Russians... are much more submissive people. However, I feel obliged to remind you that when it explodes in China or Russia, it's very violent.
Now, you talk about Le Pen, but Le Pen is a tool of the system here, and Melloni won't do anything either... Marine Le Pen for instance never showed a serious will to win the election and sabotaged her chances of winning by doing shit during debates.
There are independent medias in France, but they are mostly hidden and ridiculed to the point most of people won't go there. It sure is not like Russia in form, but the finality is the same. I don't know very well Russians, but Id oubt that they wouldn't want to see their country changing. I suspect that you get this opinion mainly from the people who are here, yet Russians here are probably not a good sample of Russians in real life.
The lack of serious political opposition in Russia also is significant.
There is no serious political opposition in France either... Le Pen or Zemmour, or Mélenchon, are anything but a serious opposition. In fact,t hey are very much like Macron and unwilling to work for the people. They also get support of the same peopel who are destroying the country since decades.
Le Pen for instance didn't want to rise the minimum wage in France, having a very confuse discourse and comparison with Bulgaria... Mélenchon is litteraly sulking and insulting people.
No, no, no. I can't agree. Of course we can consider NATO as threat in various ways. Something like I would tell about my own country: many politicians and generally people, but politicians sometimes make decisions - we had strong narration "We are in NATO. We are safe. Noone would attack us(in mind: oh, so we dont need these tanks, we dont need more soldiers)".
Okay, that is dangerous thinking, that is threat. For NATO member. Like You said.
That's especially not taking any lesson from history if Poles think that their "allies" won't think about their ass first. However, when you get an alliance against a destroyed ennemy and keep it alive or reinforce it, again, this is ntohing else than a threat.
When we look at Greece - Turkey tensions, we also feels weird. I mean, at least me. When two NATO members seems to have a war soon. Or at least smaller military conflict.
Turkey is barely a NATO member though. Like you said, it runs with the hare and hunts with the hound (still manage to collapse).
And sure: we could say that NATO is threat to Russia, on military field. But now we have to split it for some variants. Who could be agressor, and who could be defender? Is it about threatening in passive way, like staying at border and doing nothing, or in active way, like real shooting at each other?
Of course we are threat when we just defend our land. We are threat for enemy interest - when his interest is in conquering us. Right?
When you are arminga bow in the garden of your friend facing his neighbour's door while pretending to defend against someone living in the other street, and that your friend's garden ahs almost no fence, no trees or bush that could slow or stop the arrow coming from you, then I barely see the defense of your land there.
For sure, I can imagine that as someone from Poland, you take the threat that Russia might be very seriously (and that the reaction from a country like Germany who's totally unprepared might be desperating), yet, letting a buffer zone and trying to cool the situation down rather than trying to add oil on fire and to kick Russia is a huge mistake in my opinion. Not only because Russia wouldn't be independent from us at the moment, but also because we wouldn't make fool of ourselves.
Moreover, if we want to speak about "EU" interest in the sense of EU/US wants it, then China is much more of a threat than Russia is. Russian army isn't the second army at all like too many people still say, and economically, China is not comparable to Russia, and already has a footstep in EU thanks to our geniuses leaders.
Why Swedish and Finland wants to NATO now? Would You call it not right and unfair? They just want have better chances and secure themselves from potential aggression. I will never respect imperialistic aspirations of someone, so I don't consider a "threat" as equal, if its threat that I make, or threat that my enemy makes.
Don't know what motive them exactly. Finland has a grudge with Russia for sure, but those countries are also highly "democratic", which means influencable.
Again, I can imagine than as a Pole you see Russia very much as a threat (and I might lower the problem as well, since Russia is not a threat for France). Yet, US is also very imperialist and is leading NATO. You also have another country next to your border that is fond into a weird form of imperialism in Europe... (doesn't seem to work quite well since geniuses are leading us).
If NATO maneouvers are incomparable smaller than maneouvers or Russia and Belarus.
How? Can't remmber since Russia still has some stuff in Cuba.
If we have countries like Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, France, Croatia, Island... No. Im not going to say that "oh, they are not real allies" or something. I want to point out, that they could just not have any interest in helping the countries adjacent with Russia. And they don't have to help. Or maybe they would help us at least with weapon and supplies, because its still really important. It isnt said that the best help is with sending army, because why Spain, so far from us, would have to send soldiers or tanks, right? I dont mean this of course.
Oh! And its also visible when You see deals between Russia and Germany for example. Germany had interest in let Russia in the Europe. And I dont have to mention that Germany are the biggest player in EU, right? Well, altough maybe their positions is weakening...
I don't understand your point here. Are you asking why would Spain help against Russia if Russia wasn't a threat? Maybe because we are vassals of Uncle Sam? Look at how Macron act like a carpet with an old senile dude.
But would You really say that NATO could attack Russia? Can You imagine this, as initiative of NATO members, and what goal it could be?
Isn't what US already did? If you want to know who's responsible of a war, look at who benefits most from it... (Nah, Russia isn't out of any responsibility, it took the bait and it also get benefits).
