As a UK citizen, it's interesting to think back to Barack Obama's attempt to convince the country not to vote for Brexit (saying the UK would "go to the back of the line" for future trade deal negotiations).
I think the real difference now, isn't so much that the US is applying more pressure on european politics, but that it's politics is so much further away from most european countries than even five years ago.
The importance of trading blocks (as in Obama's example) is a pretty standard view. The support for antidemocratic strongmen (with Vance's support of Orban) is a lot less, even now.
> I think the real difference now, isn't so much that the US is applying more pressure on european politics, but that it's politics is so much further away from most european countries than even five years ago.
No,the difference is not in mere political misalignments.
You have both US governments and US oligarchs openly pushing and directly promoting fascist and extremist political parties, while at the same time threatening with annexation and military interventions.
From a technical voter fraud perspective, paper ballots remain the answer.
From a propaganda perspective, things are probably more complicated. I imagine some European democracies are more easily influenced than others. And when the EU itself is on an authoritarian bender, it's hard to see how foreign meddling could make things much worse.
More transparency into party funding might be a good place to start. That's something that seems pretty vague at least here in BE. More direct representation would also be pretty sweet, but that might be asking for too much...
> This is business as usual. It's just now they are shilling different political parties than before.
A fascist US transitioning to a full dictatorship is not business as usual. Europe lived through something similar, and learned some lessons that so far hasn't forgotten.
This is one of those topics that annoys me, because the reporting on it is always “how dare they!” and never a realpolitik explanation of how states attempt to interfere with each other’s power-selection mechanisms.
It seems pretty obvious that every great power attempts to influence other states. The more interesting question is: when is this acceptable? To what degree?
Is a leader commenting on an election fine, but actually committing funds toward NGOs too much? Is it completely acceptable for certain political ideologies but not for others, i.e., it’s okay for me to interfere with you, but not for you to interfere with me. Is it acceptable against adversaries but not amongst allies?
(This last one is probably the real question RE: the US and EU.)
It’s a complex geopolitical question. And no matter which answer you give, there will be examples that make you uncomfortable and willing to break your own rule.
A lot of people are fed up with uncontrolled migration and are drifting to parties that promise this to stop or be reverted. No need of US interference to explain it. And they choose democratic way to try and reverse it
Every major power dislikes election interference until it's strategically useful. The surprise isn't that countries try to influence each other. The surprise is that anyone still treats it as exceptional.
Yeah, if this is the effect that attempted US influence has, then have at it!
Having said that, it is frustratingly amusing seeing the US going overt with its extra-territorial electoral interference with their recent history of being incredibly sensitive and defensive about other countries attempts at influencing US elections.
> with their recent history of being incredibly sensitive and defensive about other countries attempts at influencing US elections.
That was always the play. You say the things you would do if you were in your political opponents shoes, you talk about how bad it is, how horrible and wrong. And then, if you can manage to get enough political or monied support, you do the thing you said they were doing! After all, they did the thing first, right? It's just fair play, you say.
That definitely seemed to be the case in Australia, but where it's possibly started moving the other way is that a smaller, more conservative (I don't like these political terms, it's not exactly correct but it gets the point across, I think) party than the main conservative party, appears to have taken the main 'conservative party' crown.
There was a good couple of months of mainstream media even touting that they're a threat to the left/progressive/less-conservative party currently in power who won the last election in no uncertain terms (maybe possibly a landslide...?).
It's hard to get a real gauge on it, but there's a very vocal minority that has been emboldened by Trump's anti-immigration, easy answers, point at 'other' as the cause of all the problems plaguing society rhetoric and actions, such that the 'more conservative' are at least getting more airtime, which makes it seem as if they're a "growing base". I know some people who have started talking a bit more openly in this direction.
> After all, Elon Musk, the American tycoon who owns X and Tesla and is a former adviser to President Trump on public spending, personally campaigned to support the far-right AfD party in the German elections.
The USA is supporting the same parties that they had to fight in WWII. I would think that repeating the same mistakes from the past and expecting different results is not a sane approach to politics.
So, business as usual? The mighty have always influenced the less powerful. The US has just as much incentive to influence European elections, as do Russia or China. It's not surprising that they act on these incentives.
This is such a lazy comment. How is the EU changing? How is it changing to be closer to which part of South America? South America is changing so do you mean how it was or are they converging? The EU has expanded in the last 40 years but I don't imagine that's what you mean.
As a UK citizen, it's interesting to think back to Barack Obama's attempt to convince the country not to vote for Brexit (saying the UK would "go to the back of the line" for future trade deal negotiations).
I think the real difference now, isn't so much that the US is applying more pressure on european politics, but that it's politics is so much further away from most european countries than even five years ago.
The importance of trading blocks (as in Obama's example) is a pretty standard view. The support for antidemocratic strongmen (with Vance's support of Orban) is a lot less, even now.
> with Vance's support of Orban
Tbh, if that always plays out like it did in this case I'm all for US interference in EU elections ;)
> I think the real difference now, isn't so much that the US is applying more pressure on european politics, but that it's politics is so much further away from most european countries than even five years ago.
No,the difference is not in mere political misalignments.
You have both US governments and US oligarchs openly pushing and directly promoting fascist and extremist political parties, while at the same time threatening with annexation and military interventions.
From a technical voter fraud perspective, paper ballots remain the answer.
From a propaganda perspective, things are probably more complicated. I imagine some European democracies are more easily influenced than others. And when the EU itself is on an authoritarian bender, it's hard to see how foreign meddling could make things much worse.
More transparency into party funding might be a good place to start. That's something that seems pretty vague at least here in BE. More direct representation would also be pretty sweet, but that might be asking for too much...
This is business as usual. It's just now they are shilling different political parties than before.
> This is business as usual. It's just now they are shilling different political parties than before.
A fascist US transitioning to a full dictatorship is not business as usual. Europe lived through something similar, and learned some lessons that so far hasn't forgotten.
The US is nowhere near fascism or directorship. People always exaggerate when someone other than a spineless neoliberal is elected.
This is one of those topics that annoys me, because the reporting on it is always “how dare they!” and never a realpolitik explanation of how states attempt to interfere with each other’s power-selection mechanisms.
It seems pretty obvious that every great power attempts to influence other states. The more interesting question is: when is this acceptable? To what degree?
Is a leader commenting on an election fine, but actually committing funds toward NGOs too much? Is it completely acceptable for certain political ideologies but not for others, i.e., it’s okay for me to interfere with you, but not for you to interfere with me. Is it acceptable against adversaries but not amongst allies?
(This last one is probably the real question RE: the US and EU.)
It’s a complex geopolitical question. And no matter which answer you give, there will be examples that make you uncomfortable and willing to break your own rule.
A lot of people are fed up with uncontrolled migration and are drifting to parties that promise this to stop or be reverted. No need of US interference to explain it. And they choose democratic way to try and reverse it
Every major power dislikes election interference until it's strategically useful. The surprise isn't that countries try to influence each other. The surprise is that anyone still treats it as exceptional.
UK Labour party had activists in the US encouraging people to vote for the Democrats in 2024. This isn't unique to the US.
The headline makes me chuckle.
> US Vice-President J.D. Vance urged Hungarians to vote for the outgoing prime minister, Viktor Orbán,
Hungarians voted Orbán in, but they also voted him out even with Vance influence.
Yeah, if this is the effect that attempted US influence has, then have at it!
Having said that, it is frustratingly amusing seeing the US going overt with its extra-territorial electoral interference with their recent history of being incredibly sensitive and defensive about other countries attempts at influencing US elections.
> with their recent history of being incredibly sensitive and defensive about other countries attempts at influencing US elections.
That was always the play. You say the things you would do if you were in your political opponents shoes, you talk about how bad it is, how horrible and wrong. And then, if you can manage to get enough political or monied support, you do the thing you said they were doing! After all, they did the thing first, right? It's just fair play, you say.
Rules for thee moment
Canada and Australia election results away from conservatives are result of US "influence"
That definitely seemed to be the case in Australia, but where it's possibly started moving the other way is that a smaller, more conservative (I don't like these political terms, it's not exactly correct but it gets the point across, I think) party than the main conservative party, appears to have taken the main 'conservative party' crown.
There was a good couple of months of mainstream media even touting that they're a threat to the left/progressive/less-conservative party currently in power who won the last election in no uncertain terms (maybe possibly a landslide...?).
It's hard to get a real gauge on it, but there's a very vocal minority that has been emboldened by Trump's anti-immigration, easy answers, point at 'other' as the cause of all the problems plaguing society rhetoric and actions, such that the 'more conservative' are at least getting more airtime, which makes it seem as if they're a "growing base". I know some people who have started talking a bit more openly in this direction.
The only real way to judge is an actual election.
Thankfully, they don't realize how odious they are to anyone not stuck in their cult already.
Finally
> After all, Elon Musk, the American tycoon who owns X and Tesla and is a former adviser to President Trump on public spending, personally campaigned to support the far-right AfD party in the German elections.
The USA is supporting the same parties that they had to fight in WWII. I would think that repeating the same mistakes from the past and expecting different results is not a sane approach to politics.
>now
Completely unserious continent.
They should. Election Interference is their chief export.
At least they’re allowing their colonies to have elections
So, business as usual? The mighty have always influenced the less powerful. The US has just as much incentive to influence European elections, as do Russia or China. It's not surprising that they act on these incentives.
I've been talking about how the EU was slowly turning into South America for the past 40 years, so this is just the next step in this direction.
This is such a lazy comment. How is the EU changing? How is it changing to be closer to which part of South America? South America is changing so do you mean how it was or are they converging? The EU has expanded in the last 40 years but I don't imagine that's what you mean.
What do you mean?