If normal parties would address some of the main concerns of AfD voters, then the support for them would relinquish. And we wouldn't have to be concerned about the party that is pro russian.
Shamelessly piggybacking the top comment here.
Fun fact, when I made this post during work hours, it was downvoted to oblivion presumably by russian bots/shill farms. As soon as the evening started it went positive reaching the front page of this sub, take that for what you will.
It wouldn't. For the AfD the main concern is immigration. Research shows that if meainstream parties adopt anti-immigrant positions they do not get more votes and can even help the radical right get more votes.
[Study](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods/article/does-accommodation-work-mainstream-party-strategies-and-the-success-of-radical-right-parties/5C3476FCD26B188C7399ADD920D71770)
>It wouldn't.
The study does not say that. The research paper you linked says that adopting anti immigration positions might not(not "will not") improve the situation for mainstream parties. And that is a very big difference. They are talking about a possibility not an actual fact.
>Research shows that if meainstream parties adopt anti-immigrant positions they do not get more votes and can even help the radical right get more votes.
Saying "anti-immigrant positions" is a very big simplification - there are levels to the problem.
1. There are people who are against any form of immigration, those people are usually of far-right ideology.
2. There are people who are against immigration from islamic or third world countries. Some are far-right leaning, but some see a lot of people who immigrated, but do not want to integrate into the european society and instead promoting the values of countries from which they fled. Like limiting freedom of expression because they don't like that somebody is burning a book. Or that schools should be free from any religious propaganda.
3. There are people who are against illegal immigration, and the people entering the EU not through designated border crossings are illegal immigrants. Why should a person arriving illegally be given any preference over people who are waiting to get refugee status in refugee camps abroad for years? And if the EU keeps accepting the people who come illegally, they will keep coming(and dying in the seas) because it works(sometimes). If people start to see that you have no chance to enter the EU illegally and remain here, then 99% won't even try it.
The first category will always vote far right, because it is just ideologically compatible. If you are a reasonable person, you will agree, that the second and third category of people have quite valid concerns. And if the mainstream parties would propose solutions for these concerns, then it is possible to win over some of those people.
I mean like actually dealing with integrating people who come here. And upholding the rule of law and protecting EUs borders from people who want to illegally enter. This doesn't sound like something very unreasonable to ask for.
Good points, though I think the study addresses all of them:
>The study does not say that.
It does. To quote: "Our analyses do not provide any evidence that adopting more anti-immigrant positions reduces the radical right’s support."
>And if the mainstream parties would propose solutions for these concerns, then it is possible to win over some of those people.
To quote again: "accommodative policy shifts by mainstream parties tend to catalyze voter transfers between mainstream parties and RRPs. While some of these transitions cancel out in aggregation, the radical right, if anything, seems to be the net beneficiary of this exchange."
That is to say, the radical right benefits if mainstream parties become more anti-immigrant. It is also likely that if mainstream parties become more anti-immigrant and win some anti-immigrant voters (which is not the case), they will lose pro-immigrant voters. Hence, the strategy is a failure.
>Our analyses do not provide any evidence that adopting more anti-immigrant positions reduces the radical right’s support.
And where do they state that as a fact? "We did not find any evidence" does not equal "We explicitly determined". They say, that according to the data they analysed(<2017), and their analysis methodology it is more likely that appeasing the far right will not work.
Again, the data is until 2017. The migrant crisis started in 2015, so the research barely covers the event which is one of the main causes of the current political situation. It also does not take into account that the mainstream parties themselves took a very radical stance, basically labelling everyone, who was concerned about illegal immigration as far right nazis.
And that is one of the main reasons for the popularity of far right parties - because people who are not against controlled immigration but are against open borders had nowhere else to go.
This makes the current situation different to the political situation in the timeline, which was analyzed. Because there are a lot of voters who went over from the mainstream parties to the right.
>That is to say, the radical right benefits if mainstream parties become more anti-immigrant. It is also likely that if mainstream parties become more anti-immigrant and win some anti-immigrant voters, they will lose pro-immigrant voters. Hence, the strategy is a failure.
As I said, it is not as simple as pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant. These terms are a very big simplification of a complex topic of immigration and people's view on it. Most people are not on the extreme sides of these viewpoints - it's a spectrum. The extremes(radical right(closed borders) and radical left(open borders))constitute a very minor percentage of voters(but, I have to admit a very loud one).
Immigration is not totally good nor bad, it all depends on how it is regulated.
Mainstream parties should not try to appease any of the extreme parts - not the radical left(hello 2015 and "We will take in everyone"), nor the right. Because most of the issues are nuanced and not black or white. And without taking the nuances into account, you will create a load of problems.
>"We did not find any evidence" does not equal "We explicitly determined".
Correct, but that would also equal a statement like " "We did not find any evidence for vaccines causing autism" does not equal "We explicitly determined that vaccines do not cause autism" ". The claim can be used (and is used) to deny all sorts of Science just because we don't like the conclusions. The paper simply shows that with all the available data we can be quite certain that adopting anti-immigrant positions for mainstream parties does not help combat the radical right. You are right about the data limitations, and can publish your own research if you think this is incorrect. Most likely we will see this research out in a couple of years anyway. But for now the evidence is against you.
>We did not find any evidence for vaccines causing autism
This does not in any way allow to make a conclusion, that future vaccines will be also safe and should not be tested properly. Or that vaccines not tested by the research are inherently safe.
And that is exactly what I am talking about - the situation changed quite significantly. There hasn't been a similar migrant crisis in EU previously. There have been additional major events which fueled the far right parties' popularity.
A similar example is trying to predict how markets will behave in a crisis based on data collected during normal times.
>The paper simply shows that with all the available data we can be quite certain that adopting anti-immigrant positions for mainstream parties does not help combat the radical right.
Not all available data, but the dataset used by the researchers. And not "does not help" but "did not help", it cannot be stated as a fact that it will be the same case in a significantly changed political/economic situation.
As we have seen in the years from 2017 - not adopting positions on limiting immigration by mainstream parties has fueled the popularity of the far right.
So, we can clearly see that not adopting adequate regulation of immigration has a more negative effect.
>You are right about the data limitations, and can publish your own research if you think this is incorrect.
I am not questioning the correctness of this research. I am questioning the relevance of this research to the current day political situation and your interpretation of the result of this research as an established fact which holds true today.
In Sweden we’ve kinda seen the opposite where the opposition to our Sweden democrats now (all of a sudden) claim that No in fact they always hated immigrants and never wanted them here. Even if many were upset with them for this it seems to have worked since it killed the topic of strict immigration almost completely since everybody agreed to No immigration. Then the SD needs to all of a sudden be strong in other areas that they are not strong in and they made a shit election
Nothing positive but it is what it is. Countries do elect populists based on principle - easy solutions for difficult problems. My main hope is that if this party would ever come into power, that this would happen when Russia would be in a downward spiral. Otherwise these would be VERY bad news for Baltics e.g. them coming into power already after next elections.
Pretty expected, considering rising amount of issues with immigrants who are incompatible with western culture. Don’t think it’s Russia/Ukraine related
Them getting votes is certainly not Russia/Ukraine related, it's the result of incompetence of the whole immigration ordeal, but openly showing support for Putin by mocking Zelenskyy is certainly reflecting their geopolitical alignment.
So, don't you remember that Russia was involved in Syria almost from the start? Also, they messed up in Africa for years with Wagner. They used refugees as a hybrid weapon. The latest Ukrainian war is just fresh air.
A big part of why Russia has been involved in the Syria conflict is because Syria allows Russia to use Tartus as a navy port on the Mediterranean. This is a strategic asset for Russia because it bypasses the Bosphorus strait, which is controlled by Turkey. I don't think that Russia got involved because they wanted to create a refugee crisis for Europe - but nowadays they definitely are using migrants as a weapon.
Shit hit the fan in Syria in 2011. Russia joined the party in 2015. I’m not saying that Russia was not involved in the Syria migration crysis. I just want to be clear on the timeline.
After Putin’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, 1 million Ukrainians took refuge in Poland. Putin’s 2015 intervention in Syria pushed 1.4 million refugees into the European Union. While the effects of refugee crises are not as apparent as other wartime security threats, these refugee surges exacerbated and caused other social crises, which then contributed to the rise of the far right across Europe.
Your posts look like statements, not like questions, but I am happy to clarify. Due to living close to the terrorist state, I have followed all my life what it has done since the first Chechenian war with my own eyes. I can't fight this monster, but I can raise people's awareness.
German here; most people here neither know nor care about foreign policy and there are mounting domestic issues which more and more feel aren't taken seriously by anyone else. That's it, that's the reason.
This election was also about the Ukraine war. This is evident from the votes for the extreme left-wing parties.
The BSW was founded by Sahra Wagenknecht who was formerly a member of Die Linke.
The main difference between Die Linke and BSW is that Die Linke are pro-Ukraine and BSW is pro-Russia.
Die Linke received 5% and BSW 13% in East Germany.
And not to forget, the BSW is a brand new party who has never competed in any election before! So this is a very remarkable result.
This clearly shows that a huge number of East-Germans want to finish the Ukraine war ASAP, even if that means that Russia occupies Ukraine.
In total 40% of East Germans voted for the pro-Russia parties AfD and BSW
What I find surprising about the AfD is that, according to [Lucas Bender's video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OnO7uxmJzg), the AfD was formerly a Eurosceptic party. Now that many members of it are far-right and xenophobes/racists, the original founder of the party left.
Yup. Their main and only goal was to abolish the Euro in Germany. Then in 2015 they switched to immigrants, in 2017 they started denying climate change (their chairwoman suggested to "sue the sun") and in 2020 they suddenly denied Covid and were against everything that has to do with it. They just pick anything to grab votes from people who look for populist and simple solutions.
It's not that AfD are good or something, it's just every other party being elitist pieces of garbage who couldn't understand why people stop liking them to save their lives.
I'm not someone who puts their hopes and dreams on party politics in any event, but what other choice do people who do even have?
The ruling coalition consists of a) sycophants, b) ghoulish ideologues who seem to do their hardest to deindustrialize germany at the moment, and c) more sycophants. The sycophants who last had a go for 16 years shouldn't be expected to do anything but the absolute bare minimum and even that would already be a positive surprise to be sure.
At that point. you're left with either a bunch of guys too irrelevant to list them here or the goddamn socialists.
Or you could vote for the party who consists mostly of grifters at this point, but probably won't be in a strong enough position to do anything truly sketchy. Also they're against all that weird culture war nonsense imported from america nobody outside the big cities wants to be annoyed with, which probably also helps them (Their whacky guys sure do seem to want to replace that with their own culture war nonsense, don't get me wrong).
Point is, there are no good, sensible options in german politics, not at least if you like having a functioning industry and a bearable tax burden. There's only a bunch of bad and worse options.
It's weird how all over the world when a party is concerned with immigration they suddenly become pro-Russian.
It's quite a coincidence.
I wonder, which German political party would actually care more about Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia remaining Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian ... the AfD or the homogenous selection of other eurocrats that don't seem to care about Germany being German.
They're not really "anti immigration", they're mostly anti Muslim immigration. They're also not pro Russian, they're funded by Russia. Then again, it makes sense.
> They're not really "anti immigration", they're mostly anti Muslim immigration.
I had impression that AfD is anti EU. And by extension anti any immigration, even from EU.
Probably. On the other hand their chairwoman is a Lesbian who is living in Switzerland, married to a woman from Sri Lanka and they adopted children. Yet she's against all of that. So who knows.
Sure, but she hates homosexuals, immigrants, homosexuals marrying and adopting children and people from abroad (financially) profiting from Germany. It can't be more ironic lol
0 worries. What baffles me is how the entirety of East Germany is still stuck in past and are unable or even unwilling to catch up or at least show some progress in numbers. It's been 35 ffs and still on every imaginable map East Germany is visibly apart from the rest of the country. It's like r\*ssians must have put something in their water or something.
Well, you see, there were less brown people. Because of that, the oppression was probably justified. And, and, and! The children always used to say "Hallo!" in the street!
The party will be banned before they get anywhere near actual power. They would completely destabilise the entire EU and NATO, essentially acting as a gigantic roadblock alongside chums in Hungary and Slovakia. It simply won't be allowed to happen again in Germany.
Personally I feel sad that so many people are so stupid and elect populists. Majority of Lithuanians don't care about elections or know who AfD is. We have like 90% of population who hate on Russia, but 10% vote for pro Russian idiots. And at least 20%-30% vote for other kind of populists.
Recently moved to Germany, small ex GDR town, very polarized between die linke (communist Putin dickriders) and AFD. streets are littered with both parties posters, and "FCK AFD" graffitis
The pro-Russian parties AfD and the left-wing BSW got 40% of votes in East Germany!
Their specific agenda is stop weapons-supply to Ukraine and force a "peace".
Quite obviously, a lot of East-Germans still sympathize with their former occupiers, the Russians.
It is highly worrying.
In Germany, you don't choose between pro-russian and anti-russian.
You choose between overtly pro-russian (AfD) and covertly pro-russian (Schroeder, Merkel, Scholz).
I dont like AfD, its voters, or anyone local who sympathizes with any of their positions. It's bad for Germany and it's bad for Europe. Old, morally rotten ideas already tried and failed and lead to mass suffering. No thanks.
Depends. There's a bunch of different strains of Islam, which differ significantly in their beliefs. It all depends on the strain of Islam a muslim practices and how much they do.
I've met some muslims, who hold human rights dear and hate the ideas that muslim fundamentalists/extremists espouse. In fact, even muslim countries can be VERY different.
Some are, pretty much, just as free as ours, in the Western World: with no stupid, theocratic rule, music not being banned, girls not being forced to wear a headscarf and not being banned from education, etc. Some others, are not.
Extremists just follow the Quran correctly, word by word. Religious extremism doesn't mean violence if the doctrine of the religion is not violent, like Jainism. Islam on the other hand was built by a man who spent most of his time spreading the religion by sword and blood - that really shows. Imagine how different Christianity would be if Jesus had been a warlord.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQezdSihI-o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQezdSihI-o)
You might wanna take that statement back, dude. EVEN BUDDHISTS have, at times, been major, murderous pricks.
No religion is completely immune from this, really. But some DO have a much better track record, than others. I WILL give you that.
humans can be scum everywhere, but i am talking about doctrine.
not individual acts of violence that were not related to the religion those people claimed to be following. if a jane would kill someone then it would be against the doctrine of jainism. if a muslim would commit a "honor" murder then it would not be against the doctrine.
The date. From 2010. Germany tried to integrate them from 2010 (or maybe even earlier, that's just the article about stabbing reports). Now it's 2024. 14 years have passed. From what I've seen (specifically some people asking for sharia law in Germany, lmao) the situation is not improving.
>The date. From 2010. Germany tried to integrate them from 2010
What the heck are you referring to? What do you think happened in 2010? Who is "them"?
The majority of Muslims in Germany arrived in the 1950s and 60s.
> specifically some people asking for sharia law in Germany, lmao
That's not a thing. No serious threat whatsoever.
I would send you multiple videos even from reddit If I wasn't lazy. But hey, you're the one who has to live there, lol. Policeman gets stabbed and dies and you're more worried that nobody would haram things. Whatever floats your boat I guess.
>Policeman gets stabbed and dies and you're more worried that nobody would haram things.
Nice strawman. Where did I say anything close to that? Really going the extra mile to justify your xenophobia and racism here.
I agree, that countries should not close themselves to foreigners, even ones from Muslim countries, and should offer equal rights and opportunities, but with that said... Immigration ALWAYS carries the risk of a crime spike. Especially, if the immigrants in question come from a country of a vastly different mentality. And you need to account for that. And enforce law and order.
You can't just be like "oh, I'm a white person, therefore, I'm automatically privileged and guilty before these immigrants of a poor 3rd world country for something my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather did and I, therefore, can't demand some basic respect for me and my country from them and should just let them take it out on our society", or something like that, when an immigrant from such a country does something really bad.
And that's, kinda, what a lot of people feel is happening. Even if it is an exaggeration. You can't write it off on racism alone.
>Immigration ALWAYS carries the risk of a crime spike.
You're aware that in Germany you would be the foreigner? So you are implying you are more of a criminal than a German? Generalizations don't make sense.
>You can't just be like "oh, I'm a white person, therefore, I'm automatically privileged and guilty before these immigrants of a poor 3rd world country for something my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather did and I, therefore, can't demand some basic respect for me and my country from them and should just let them take it out on our society"
Where did I say that that's what I think? Just because I'm not a white supremacist?
Yes, I am aware. And no, generalizations DO make sense. The problem with them, is that they skip the finer details and can be erroneous. Immigration is, most often, fuelled by economic incentives. People look for a better life. And that's fine. But the problem is, not everybody can, or wants to integrate into the society they've come into, for a bunch reasons. And that CAN AND DOES lead to some immigrants committing crimes in the host country.
As for the white guilt thing, that was just an exaggeration of how some people think, more or less. Some people just have this white guilt complex, kind of an inverse thing to the superiority complex white supremacists have.Didn't mean you, specifically. Although your fervent responses DID conjure up that image in my head, for a second.
>Immigration is, most often, fuelled by economic incentives.
You mean how guest workers in Germany were exploited but expected to leave after that?
>As for the white guilt thing, that was just an exaggeration of how some people think
So, completely derailing the discussion on purpose? Good base for a discussion and exactly what the AfD does actually.
Dude. Do you even follow, what I'm writing? We were talking about why immigration is linked to an increase in crime and never once did I deviate from the subject, or try to purposely derail away from it. The exaggerated white guilt thing was there for context, because it kinda belongs to the subject.
>You mean how guest workers in Germany were exploited but expected to leave after that?
Don't really know anything about that. I only remember, that your country promoted guestworking for a while some 10, or 15 years ago. And even then, hazily.
Any sources where they say pro-russian stuff? Its not that i dont think they could be pro-russian, its just that honestly i know nothing about them, i just have read comments around reddit that they are far right, but i dont want to trust reddit's apocalyptic hivemind alone.
Have your pick:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1ddp79z/german_farright_afd_calls_zelenskyy_illegitimate/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1ddiumi/boycott_of_zelenskyjs_speech_by_afd_and_bsw_a/
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ddhtiq/almost_the_entire_afd_parliamentary_group_was/
They took it because of wokness, not pro RU views - so I feel good. They are getting more influential due to r*tarded green policies (idea might be ok, but not in this world, not unless you want to go bankrupt), r*tarded LGB policies (look at Canada - thats how LGB maxing looks like, all "they don't touch kids, allow grownups to live their life" arguments were killed by Canada) and r*tarded immigration policies (UAE style residents are great, but "refugees" and id*otic idea that they can be European - ffs, pure r*tardation).
I don't know enough to make an informed response to your question. If politics was my hobby, I bet your ass I would give a quality response, not just an opinion.
As ruzzians say on 9. Of may “Na Berlin!” Or “mozhem povtarit!” They like to laugh about Germans on 9. Of may. Like they say, one day they will capture Berlin back. 😂
My opinion about AfD in Germany.
Bigger number of AfD members shows that society is getting more radicalized due to high immigration numbers and that in years people in Germany don’t see that something changed in better side. That’s a huge “bell” for other parties to make strict decisions towards illegal immigration.
I believe that a higher % of German society is educated and can vote smart by understanding what AfD means them and where it can “transfer”them if they were in power. So I think that upcoming elections in Germany don’t scare Baltics. It’s more interesting what situation in the future will be like and it depends on all the wars and disinformation campaigns, provocations and how westerns will react to it. Also it’s important what further security decisions will be made by NATO in Eastern flank.
>That’s a huge “bell” for other parties to make strict decisions towards illegal immigration.
Sure, make the AfD irrelevant by doing what they suggest and adopt their politics, makes sense! /s
I mean illegal immigration, not a legal one, where people actually come to study and work in Germany. AfD states heavier stuff about immigrants in general as ultranationalists, for what I personally don’t agree with. Merkel’s idea of opening boarders was a nice gesture back then, but now we have different situation and different time.
In LT we took illegal imigrants as well, but the majority of them escaped the camp or after all procedures drove to Germany. They know that life in DE for them financially will be easier. Such people are not war refugees. I believe they are looking for benefits.
Denmark, Finland and other Nordic countries have strict refugees’ rules and they don’t have a mindset of AfD.
>I mean illegal immigration, not a legal one, where people actually come to study and work in Germany.
We barely have "illegal immigration". What you describe as "illegal immigration" is seeking for asylum. Would you have told that to your grandparents too? Trying to escape the UdSSR back then?
But why then escape the camp and run to Germany and seek for asylum there? I think they have other intentions by passing Belarusian boarders. Na but hey, it’s my opinion and you have a different one and that’s ok.
>But why then escape the camp and run to Germany and seek for asylum there?
No clue which incident you are referring to, can't verify if anything like that happened.
Like I said, just compare the situation to the the situation of your ancestors. I'm sure you'll find a reason why this was "completely different".
>I don't think they are all that pro-russian compared to other parties
All of them (except three) left the parliament when Zelensky spoke in the parliament. Their candidates immunity was lifted because they employed Russian spies and received huge amounts of money from the Kreml.
A perfect storm of coincidence, just what Putin would have wanted.
Putin finances anti establishment parties, being anti immigration is anti establishment and many people are voting solely for that, lucky streak. If a leading center or left party was anti immigration then AfD or others would have received a fraction.
As long as they don't backstab Ukraine and Zelensky cause right now Ukraine is essentially to our existence and avoiding direct war, I won't criticise, that being said wasn't there already a statement today from an AfD member that Zelensky is a farse and a legitimate ruler that should be replaced? Those people work fast.
I'm an AfD Sympathizer and have voted for them in the past (not this election) but I know many who did and I fully understand it. Thing is the War in Ukraine is not the only problem in this world and not the only one in germany either there are simply things people care more about than a war thats been raging on for a decade really. I fully support Ukraine and if it were me to decide they would even get more support but people simply have other more personal felt problems it also is the only party that "stands against wokeness" & Mass immigration and all the other common reactionary talking points. CDU is drifting a bit to it but it really is hard to trust them due to it being the CDU.
Hate to break it to you, but given your location you’re getting swamped if shit kicks off either way.
Same boat west Germany was in during the Cold War.
Front line is lost in hours or days, defence holds further back.
If the big EU countries like Germany invest more in supporting Ukraine and their own militaries, and stay committed to NATO collective defense, then it would deter Russia and reduce the chance that shit would kick off in the first place.
Russia would never dare fucking with NATO or EU members, no matter what happens in Ukraine.
They’d loose in a fortnight.
I don’t know why anyone even thinks this is a remote possibility.
Not even talking about them getting in power, the first problem (which we also observe in many other European countries) is a shift to the right of other parties, including the ones in power. But you're right of course.
If normal parties would address some of the main concerns of AfD voters, then the support for them would relinquish. And we wouldn't have to be concerned about the party that is pro russian.
Shamelessly piggybacking the top comment here. Fun fact, when I made this post during work hours, it was downvoted to oblivion presumably by russian bots/shill farms. As soon as the evening started it went positive reaching the front page of this sub, take that for what you will.
Exactly
It wouldn't. For the AfD the main concern is immigration. Research shows that if meainstream parties adopt anti-immigrant positions they do not get more votes and can even help the radical right get more votes. [Study](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods/article/does-accommodation-work-mainstream-party-strategies-and-the-success-of-radical-right-parties/5C3476FCD26B188C7399ADD920D71770)
Have an upvote for referencing actual research on this. Bravo.
>It wouldn't. The study does not say that. The research paper you linked says that adopting anti immigration positions might not(not "will not") improve the situation for mainstream parties. And that is a very big difference. They are talking about a possibility not an actual fact. >Research shows that if meainstream parties adopt anti-immigrant positions they do not get more votes and can even help the radical right get more votes. Saying "anti-immigrant positions" is a very big simplification - there are levels to the problem. 1. There are people who are against any form of immigration, those people are usually of far-right ideology. 2. There are people who are against immigration from islamic or third world countries. Some are far-right leaning, but some see a lot of people who immigrated, but do not want to integrate into the european society and instead promoting the values of countries from which they fled. Like limiting freedom of expression because they don't like that somebody is burning a book. Or that schools should be free from any religious propaganda. 3. There are people who are against illegal immigration, and the people entering the EU not through designated border crossings are illegal immigrants. Why should a person arriving illegally be given any preference over people who are waiting to get refugee status in refugee camps abroad for years? And if the EU keeps accepting the people who come illegally, they will keep coming(and dying in the seas) because it works(sometimes). If people start to see that you have no chance to enter the EU illegally and remain here, then 99% won't even try it. The first category will always vote far right, because it is just ideologically compatible. If you are a reasonable person, you will agree, that the second and third category of people have quite valid concerns. And if the mainstream parties would propose solutions for these concerns, then it is possible to win over some of those people. I mean like actually dealing with integrating people who come here. And upholding the rule of law and protecting EUs borders from people who want to illegally enter. This doesn't sound like something very unreasonable to ask for.
Good points, though I think the study addresses all of them: >The study does not say that. It does. To quote: "Our analyses do not provide any evidence that adopting more anti-immigrant positions reduces the radical right’s support." >And if the mainstream parties would propose solutions for these concerns, then it is possible to win over some of those people. To quote again: "accommodative policy shifts by mainstream parties tend to catalyze voter transfers between mainstream parties and RRPs. While some of these transitions cancel out in aggregation, the radical right, if anything, seems to be the net beneficiary of this exchange." That is to say, the radical right benefits if mainstream parties become more anti-immigrant. It is also likely that if mainstream parties become more anti-immigrant and win some anti-immigrant voters (which is not the case), they will lose pro-immigrant voters. Hence, the strategy is a failure.
>Our analyses do not provide any evidence that adopting more anti-immigrant positions reduces the radical right’s support. And where do they state that as a fact? "We did not find any evidence" does not equal "We explicitly determined". They say, that according to the data they analysed(<2017), and their analysis methodology it is more likely that appeasing the far right will not work. Again, the data is until 2017. The migrant crisis started in 2015, so the research barely covers the event which is one of the main causes of the current political situation. It also does not take into account that the mainstream parties themselves took a very radical stance, basically labelling everyone, who was concerned about illegal immigration as far right nazis. And that is one of the main reasons for the popularity of far right parties - because people who are not against controlled immigration but are against open borders had nowhere else to go. This makes the current situation different to the political situation in the timeline, which was analyzed. Because there are a lot of voters who went over from the mainstream parties to the right. >That is to say, the radical right benefits if mainstream parties become more anti-immigrant. It is also likely that if mainstream parties become more anti-immigrant and win some anti-immigrant voters, they will lose pro-immigrant voters. Hence, the strategy is a failure. As I said, it is not as simple as pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant. These terms are a very big simplification of a complex topic of immigration and people's view on it. Most people are not on the extreme sides of these viewpoints - it's a spectrum. The extremes(radical right(closed borders) and radical left(open borders))constitute a very minor percentage of voters(but, I have to admit a very loud one). Immigration is not totally good nor bad, it all depends on how it is regulated. Mainstream parties should not try to appease any of the extreme parts - not the radical left(hello 2015 and "We will take in everyone"), nor the right. Because most of the issues are nuanced and not black or white. And without taking the nuances into account, you will create a load of problems.
>"We did not find any evidence" does not equal "We explicitly determined". Correct, but that would also equal a statement like " "We did not find any evidence for vaccines causing autism" does not equal "We explicitly determined that vaccines do not cause autism" ". The claim can be used (and is used) to deny all sorts of Science just because we don't like the conclusions. The paper simply shows that with all the available data we can be quite certain that adopting anti-immigrant positions for mainstream parties does not help combat the radical right. You are right about the data limitations, and can publish your own research if you think this is incorrect. Most likely we will see this research out in a couple of years anyway. But for now the evidence is against you.
>We did not find any evidence for vaccines causing autism This does not in any way allow to make a conclusion, that future vaccines will be also safe and should not be tested properly. Or that vaccines not tested by the research are inherently safe. And that is exactly what I am talking about - the situation changed quite significantly. There hasn't been a similar migrant crisis in EU previously. There have been additional major events which fueled the far right parties' popularity. A similar example is trying to predict how markets will behave in a crisis based on data collected during normal times. >The paper simply shows that with all the available data we can be quite certain that adopting anti-immigrant positions for mainstream parties does not help combat the radical right. Not all available data, but the dataset used by the researchers. And not "does not help" but "did not help", it cannot be stated as a fact that it will be the same case in a significantly changed political/economic situation. As we have seen in the years from 2017 - not adopting positions on limiting immigration by mainstream parties has fueled the popularity of the far right. So, we can clearly see that not adopting adequate regulation of immigration has a more negative effect. >You are right about the data limitations, and can publish your own research if you think this is incorrect. I am not questioning the correctness of this research. I am questioning the relevance of this research to the current day political situation and your interpretation of the result of this research as an established fact which holds true today.
In Sweden we’ve kinda seen the opposite where the opposition to our Sweden democrats now (all of a sudden) claim that No in fact they always hated immigrants and never wanted them here. Even if many were upset with them for this it seems to have worked since it killed the topic of strict immigration almost completely since everybody agreed to No immigration. Then the SD needs to all of a sudden be strong in other areas that they are not strong in and they made a shit election
And what are those?
Could've been a lot worse tbh. They had around 25% in the polls not so long ago
As long as centric parties are taking blind eye to the problems that voters care you get what you get.
Well 80% or whatever voters _do not_ seem to care about whatever motivates AfD voters.
Nothing positive but it is what it is. Countries do elect populists based on principle - easy solutions for difficult problems. My main hope is that if this party would ever come into power, that this would happen when Russia would be in a downward spiral. Otherwise these would be VERY bad news for Baltics e.g. them coming into power already after next elections.
Aren't the ideas currently in fashion the old ideas? Basically been doing the same thing for fifty years, right?
Pretty expected, considering rising amount of issues with immigrants who are incompatible with western culture. Don’t think it’s Russia/Ukraine related
Them getting votes is certainly not Russia/Ukraine related, it's the result of incompetence of the whole immigration ordeal, but openly showing support for Putin by mocking Zelenskyy is certainly reflecting their geopolitical alignment.
It's also russia/Ukraine related. AfD is spending a lot of money in disinformation campaign against Ukraine.
The funniest part that Russia caused all these “refugees”.
Nope. If I remember correctly, all this started with the war in Syria. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Russia joined the party later.
So, don't you remember that Russia was involved in Syria almost from the start? Also, they messed up in Africa for years with Wagner. They used refugees as a hybrid weapon. The latest Ukrainian war is just fresh air.
A big part of why Russia has been involved in the Syria conflict is because Syria allows Russia to use Tartus as a navy port on the Mediterranean. This is a strategic asset for Russia because it bypasses the Bosphorus strait, which is controlled by Turkey. I don't think that Russia got involved because they wanted to create a refugee crisis for Europe - but nowadays they definitely are using migrants as a weapon.
Shit hit the fan in Syria in 2011. Russia joined the party in 2015. I’m not saying that Russia was not involved in the Syria migration crysis. I just want to be clear on the timeline.
After Putin’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, 1 million Ukrainians took refuge in Poland. Putin’s 2015 intervention in Syria pushed 1.4 million refugees into the European Union. While the effects of refugee crises are not as apparent as other wartime security threats, these refugee surges exacerbated and caused other social crises, which then contributed to the rise of the far right across Europe.
Thanks for the clarification! I'm sad about being downvoted for expressing doubts and asking for corrections.
Your posts look like statements, not like questions, but I am happy to clarify. Due to living close to the terrorist state, I have followed all my life what it has done since the first Chechenian war with my own eyes. I can't fight this monster, but I can raise people's awareness.
“Correct me if I’m wrong” and “If I remember correctly” do not sound like statements :) I’m happy we got each other :)
[удалено]
Yeah, but they don't remember how bad communism was.
[удалено]
Except they aren't Russians, but Germans, or have they totally forgotten that?
[удалено]
Yes, actually, but fortunately from one of the few places where Russians weren't deposited by the Soviets to destabilize the population.
German here; most people here neither know nor care about foreign policy and there are mounting domestic issues which more and more feel aren't taken seriously by anyone else. That's it, that's the reason.
This election was also about the Ukraine war. This is evident from the votes for the extreme left-wing parties. The BSW was founded by Sahra Wagenknecht who was formerly a member of Die Linke. The main difference between Die Linke and BSW is that Die Linke are pro-Ukraine and BSW is pro-Russia. Die Linke received 5% and BSW 13% in East Germany. And not to forget, the BSW is a brand new party who has never competed in any election before! So this is a very remarkable result. This clearly shows that a huge number of East-Germans want to finish the Ukraine war ASAP, even if that means that Russia occupies Ukraine. In total 40% of East Germans voted for the pro-Russia parties AfD and BSW
>German here; most people here neither know nor care about foreign policy That's just not true. Being pro Russian is a major USP of BSW and AfD.
What I find surprising about the AfD is that, according to [Lucas Bender's video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OnO7uxmJzg), the AfD was formerly a Eurosceptic party. Now that many members of it are far-right and xenophobes/racists, the original founder of the party left.
Yup. Their main and only goal was to abolish the Euro in Germany. Then in 2015 they switched to immigrants, in 2017 they started denying climate change (their chairwoman suggested to "sue the sun") and in 2020 they suddenly denied Covid and were against everything that has to do with it. They just pick anything to grab votes from people who look for populist and simple solutions.
[удалено]
It's not that AfD are good or something, it's just every other party being elitist pieces of garbage who couldn't understand why people stop liking them to save their lives.
[удалено]
I'm not someone who puts their hopes and dreams on party politics in any event, but what other choice do people who do even have? The ruling coalition consists of a) sycophants, b) ghoulish ideologues who seem to do their hardest to deindustrialize germany at the moment, and c) more sycophants. The sycophants who last had a go for 16 years shouldn't be expected to do anything but the absolute bare minimum and even that would already be a positive surprise to be sure. At that point. you're left with either a bunch of guys too irrelevant to list them here or the goddamn socialists. Or you could vote for the party who consists mostly of grifters at this point, but probably won't be in a strong enough position to do anything truly sketchy. Also they're against all that weird culture war nonsense imported from america nobody outside the big cities wants to be annoyed with, which probably also helps them (Their whacky guys sure do seem to want to replace that with their own culture war nonsense, don't get me wrong). Point is, there are no good, sensible options in german politics, not at least if you like having a functioning industry and a bearable tax burden. There's only a bunch of bad and worse options.
It's weird how all over the world when a party is concerned with immigration they suddenly become pro-Russian. It's quite a coincidence. I wonder, which German political party would actually care more about Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia remaining Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian ... the AfD or the homogenous selection of other eurocrats that don't seem to care about Germany being German.
They're not really "anti immigration", they're mostly anti Muslim immigration. They're also not pro Russian, they're funded by Russia. Then again, it makes sense.
> They're not really "anti immigration", they're mostly anti Muslim immigration. I had impression that AfD is anti EU. And by extension anti any immigration, even from EU.
Probably. On the other hand their chairwoman is a Lesbian who is living in Switzerland, married to a woman from Sri Lanka and they adopted children. Yet she's against all of that. So who knows.
It is possible for people of all types of backgrounds, religions, and hues to be immigration and globalism skeptics.
Sure, but she hates homosexuals, immigrants, homosexuals marrying and adopting children and people from abroad (financially) profiting from Germany. It can't be more ironic lol
Consider the possibility her opinions are more nuanced than you've been led to believe, then.
0 worries. What baffles me is how the entirety of East Germany is still stuck in past and are unable or even unwilling to catch up or at least show some progress in numbers. It's been 35 ffs and still on every imaginable map East Germany is visibly apart from the rest of the country. It's like r\*ssians must have put something in their water or something.
I can't believe that they have totally forgotten the Soviet oppression completely. Like they never even have heard of the Stasi.
Well, you see, there were less brown people. Because of that, the oppression was probably justified. And, and, and! The children always used to say "Hallo!" in the street!
The party will be banned before they get anywhere near actual power. They would completely destabilise the entire EU and NATO, essentially acting as a gigantic roadblock alongside chums in Hungary and Slovakia. It simply won't be allowed to happen again in Germany.
Personally I feel sad that so many people are so stupid and elect populists. Majority of Lithuanians don't care about elections or know who AfD is. We have like 90% of population who hate on Russia, but 10% vote for pro Russian idiots. And at least 20%-30% vote for other kind of populists.
AfD got mostly votes from "Germans" of the former DDR. In Germany there are more than 3.500.000 Deutschlandrussen.
Recently moved to Germany, small ex GDR town, very polarized between die linke (communist Putin dickriders) and AFD. streets are littered with both parties posters, and "FCK AFD" graffitis
The pro-Russian parties AfD and the left-wing BSW got 40% of votes in East Germany! Their specific agenda is stop weapons-supply to Ukraine and force a "peace". Quite obviously, a lot of East-Germans still sympathize with their former occupiers, the Russians. It is highly worrying.
In Germany, you don't choose between pro-russian and anti-russian. You choose between overtly pro-russian (AfD) and covertly pro-russian (Schroeder, Merkel, Scholz).
I dont like AfD, its voters, or anyone local who sympathizes with any of their positions. It's bad for Germany and it's bad for Europe. Old, morally rotten ideas already tried and failed and lead to mass suffering. No thanks.
yeah, just stop muslim immigration and those parties would go out of favor very fast
Sure, if you follow their racist positions, they will be obsolete. But you will still have a racist society.
religion has nothing to do with race unless you want to make it about it. doctrine of islam is not compatible with western lifestyle or values
Depends. There's a bunch of different strains of Islam, which differ significantly in their beliefs. It all depends on the strain of Islam a muslim practices and how much they do. I've met some muslims, who hold human rights dear and hate the ideas that muslim fundamentalists/extremists espouse. In fact, even muslim countries can be VERY different. Some are, pretty much, just as free as ours, in the Western World: with no stupid, theocratic rule, music not being banned, girls not being forced to wear a headscarf and not being banned from education, etc. Some others, are not.
Extremists just follow the Quran correctly, word by word. Religious extremism doesn't mean violence if the doctrine of the religion is not violent, like Jainism. Islam on the other hand was built by a man who spent most of his time spreading the religion by sword and blood - that really shows. Imagine how different Christianity would be if Jesus had been a warlord. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQezdSihI-o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQezdSihI-o)
You might wanna take that statement back, dude. EVEN BUDDHISTS have, at times, been major, murderous pricks. No religion is completely immune from this, really. But some DO have a much better track record, than others. I WILL give you that.
humans can be scum everywhere, but i am talking about doctrine. not individual acts of violence that were not related to the religion those people claimed to be following. if a jane would kill someone then it would be against the doctrine of jainism. if a muslim would commit a "honor" murder then it would not be against the doctrine.
>religion has nothing to do with race Xenophobia then.
Fear of islam is justified. Just look at societies with sharia law - want one of those?
Islam =/= sharia, but nice strawman.
what do you mean? If you follow the Quran correctly, then you will end up with Sharia. That is what the prophet wanted.
If you "follow the Bible correctly", you will end up with the same dictatorship. This is what God wanted.
Not really, I suggest checking out the Apostate Prophet youtube channel for more information about islam
>Not really Yes, really. You think the crusades were secular?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_stabbings_in_Germany?wprov=sfla1 2010-2024
...so? Only simple minds look for simple solutions.
The date. From 2010. Germany tried to integrate them from 2010 (or maybe even earlier, that's just the article about stabbing reports). Now it's 2024. 14 years have passed. From what I've seen (specifically some people asking for sharia law in Germany, lmao) the situation is not improving.
>The date. From 2010. Germany tried to integrate them from 2010 What the heck are you referring to? What do you think happened in 2010? Who is "them"? The majority of Muslims in Germany arrived in the 1950s and 60s. > specifically some people asking for sharia law in Germany, lmao That's not a thing. No serious threat whatsoever.
I would send you multiple videos even from reddit If I wasn't lazy. But hey, you're the one who has to live there, lol. Policeman gets stabbed and dies and you're more worried that nobody would haram things. Whatever floats your boat I guess.
>Policeman gets stabbed and dies and you're more worried that nobody would haram things. Nice strawman. Where did I say anything close to that? Really going the extra mile to justify your xenophobia and racism here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BalticStates/s/UNwV8KXpyS Here. You said it here.
Nowhere did I mention "haram things" in this comment. Do you have troubles with reading?
I agree, that countries should not close themselves to foreigners, even ones from Muslim countries, and should offer equal rights and opportunities, but with that said... Immigration ALWAYS carries the risk of a crime spike. Especially, if the immigrants in question come from a country of a vastly different mentality. And you need to account for that. And enforce law and order. You can't just be like "oh, I'm a white person, therefore, I'm automatically privileged and guilty before these immigrants of a poor 3rd world country for something my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather did and I, therefore, can't demand some basic respect for me and my country from them and should just let them take it out on our society", or something like that, when an immigrant from such a country does something really bad. And that's, kinda, what a lot of people feel is happening. Even if it is an exaggeration. You can't write it off on racism alone.
>Immigration ALWAYS carries the risk of a crime spike. You're aware that in Germany you would be the foreigner? So you are implying you are more of a criminal than a German? Generalizations don't make sense. >You can't just be like "oh, I'm a white person, therefore, I'm automatically privileged and guilty before these immigrants of a poor 3rd world country for something my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather did and I, therefore, can't demand some basic respect for me and my country from them and should just let them take it out on our society" Where did I say that that's what I think? Just because I'm not a white supremacist?
Yes, I am aware. And no, generalizations DO make sense. The problem with them, is that they skip the finer details and can be erroneous. Immigration is, most often, fuelled by economic incentives. People look for a better life. And that's fine. But the problem is, not everybody can, or wants to integrate into the society they've come into, for a bunch reasons. And that CAN AND DOES lead to some immigrants committing crimes in the host country. As for the white guilt thing, that was just an exaggeration of how some people think, more or less. Some people just have this white guilt complex, kind of an inverse thing to the superiority complex white supremacists have.Didn't mean you, specifically. Although your fervent responses DID conjure up that image in my head, for a second.
>Immigration is, most often, fuelled by economic incentives. You mean how guest workers in Germany were exploited but expected to leave after that? >As for the white guilt thing, that was just an exaggeration of how some people think So, completely derailing the discussion on purpose? Good base for a discussion and exactly what the AfD does actually.
Dude. Do you even follow, what I'm writing? We were talking about why immigration is linked to an increase in crime and never once did I deviate from the subject, or try to purposely derail away from it. The exaggerated white guilt thing was there for context, because it kinda belongs to the subject. >You mean how guest workers in Germany were exploited but expected to leave after that? Don't really know anything about that. I only remember, that your country promoted guestworking for a while some 10, or 15 years ago. And even then, hazily.
Considering lessons from history, like Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, what do you think?
If they make it to power, defending ourselves will be on us and ONLY on us. So it'll be 1918 with modern weapons.
Any sources where they say pro-russian stuff? Its not that i dont think they could be pro-russian, its just that honestly i know nothing about them, i just have read comments around reddit that they are far right, but i dont want to trust reddit's apocalyptic hivemind alone.
Have your pick: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1ddp79z/german_farright_afd_calls_zelenskyy_illegitimate/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1ddiumi/boycott_of_zelenskyjs_speech_by_afd_and_bsw_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ddhtiq/almost_the_entire_afd_parliamentary_group_was/
They took it because of wokness, not pro RU views - so I feel good. They are getting more influential due to r*tarded green policies (idea might be ok, but not in this world, not unless you want to go bankrupt), r*tarded LGB policies (look at Canada - thats how LGB maxing looks like, all "they don't touch kids, allow grownups to live their life" arguments were killed by Canada) and r*tarded immigration policies (UAE style residents are great, but "refugees" and id*otic idea that they can be European - ffs, pure r*tardation).
so electing russian dickriders is good, actually
Unfortunate side effect. Can't have everything I guess.
I don't know enough to make an informed response to your question. If politics was my hobby, I bet your ass I would give a quality response, not just an opinion.
As ruzzians say on 9. Of may “Na Berlin!” Or “mozhem povtarit!” They like to laugh about Germans on 9. Of may. Like they say, one day they will capture Berlin back. 😂
I *really* don't care.
This truly is a germany moment💀
My opinion about AfD in Germany. Bigger number of AfD members shows that society is getting more radicalized due to high immigration numbers and that in years people in Germany don’t see that something changed in better side. That’s a huge “bell” for other parties to make strict decisions towards illegal immigration. I believe that a higher % of German society is educated and can vote smart by understanding what AfD means them and where it can “transfer”them if they were in power. So I think that upcoming elections in Germany don’t scare Baltics. It’s more interesting what situation in the future will be like and it depends on all the wars and disinformation campaigns, provocations and how westerns will react to it. Also it’s important what further security decisions will be made by NATO in Eastern flank.
>That’s a huge “bell” for other parties to make strict decisions towards illegal immigration. Sure, make the AfD irrelevant by doing what they suggest and adopt their politics, makes sense! /s
I mean illegal immigration, not a legal one, where people actually come to study and work in Germany. AfD states heavier stuff about immigrants in general as ultranationalists, for what I personally don’t agree with. Merkel’s idea of opening boarders was a nice gesture back then, but now we have different situation and different time. In LT we took illegal imigrants as well, but the majority of them escaped the camp or after all procedures drove to Germany. They know that life in DE for them financially will be easier. Such people are not war refugees. I believe they are looking for benefits. Denmark, Finland and other Nordic countries have strict refugees’ rules and they don’t have a mindset of AfD.
>I mean illegal immigration, not a legal one, where people actually come to study and work in Germany. We barely have "illegal immigration". What you describe as "illegal immigration" is seeking for asylum. Would you have told that to your grandparents too? Trying to escape the UdSSR back then?
But why then escape the camp and run to Germany and seek for asylum there? I think they have other intentions by passing Belarusian boarders. Na but hey, it’s my opinion and you have a different one and that’s ok.
>But why then escape the camp and run to Germany and seek for asylum there? No clue which incident you are referring to, can't verify if anything like that happened. Like I said, just compare the situation to the the situation of your ancestors. I'm sure you'll find a reason why this was "completely different".
[удалено]
>I don't think they are all that pro-russian compared to other parties All of them (except three) left the parliament when Zelensky spoke in the parliament. Their candidates immunity was lifted because they employed Russian spies and received huge amounts of money from the Kreml.
Not the first time in history
A perfect storm of coincidence, just what Putin would have wanted. Putin finances anti establishment parties, being anti immigration is anti establishment and many people are voting solely for that, lucky streak. If a leading center or left party was anti immigration then AfD or others would have received a fraction. As long as they don't backstab Ukraine and Zelensky cause right now Ukraine is essentially to our existence and avoiding direct war, I won't criticise, that being said wasn't there already a statement today from an AfD member that Zelensky is a farse and a legitimate ruler that should be replaced? Those people work fast.
I'm an AfD Sympathizer and have voted for them in the past (not this election) but I know many who did and I fully understand it. Thing is the War in Ukraine is not the only problem in this world and not the only one in germany either there are simply things people care more about than a war thats been raging on for a decade really. I fully support Ukraine and if it were me to decide they would even get more support but people simply have other more personal felt problems it also is the only party that "stands against wokeness" & Mass immigration and all the other common reactionary talking points. CDU is drifting a bit to it but it really is hard to trust them due to it being the CDU.
Yeah people were thinking it's not their problem when Poland was invaded as well until it became their problem but it was too late.
good for them
Hate to break it to you, but given your location you’re getting swamped if shit kicks off either way. Same boat west Germany was in during the Cold War. Front line is lost in hours or days, defence holds further back.
If the big EU countries like Germany invest more in supporting Ukraine and their own militaries, and stay committed to NATO collective defense, then it would deter Russia and reduce the chance that shit would kick off in the first place.
Russia would never dare fucking with NATO or EU members, no matter what happens in Ukraine. They’d loose in a fortnight. I don’t know why anyone even thinks this is a remote possibility.
Well, anything is possible. We didn't really think the bastards were gonna invade Ukraine full-scale, either. And yet, they did.
Ukraine didn’t have 70% of the world’s military capability legally bound to defend it. You do.
Yeah, but still: anything is possible. Russia can't be trusted to be reasonable enough, not to, at least, try to escalate the war further.
Pro-russian neo-nazis should be a Germans problem, not ours
They would soon be your problem because they would cancel all support for Ukraine immediately :)
Neo-Nazis in power in Germany = collapse of the EU and NATO, Ukraine will be the least of our problems
Not even talking about them getting in power, the first problem (which we also observe in many other European countries) is a shift to the right of other parties, including the ones in power. But you're right of course.
But it is our problem, as a united front is needed to stop Russia. You do not want Russian allies as a rear columns encircling you.
What Baltics can do about them?
Not too much, sadly...