Garry Kasparov and Gabrielius Landsbergis have published an essay
"Europe’s Future Depends on Confrontation, Not Compromise"
Politico, 08/03/2025
www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/08/03/europe-future-authoritarianism-00490010
I am far from being sure that all the descriptions provided in that article correspond to reality.
For example, the article argues that the European Union is based on free market, free trade.
However, to my knowledge, the European Union was established to kill the Soviet Union economically.
The European Union has applied economic sanctions, economic boycotts, etc.
When a chessplayer starts to write about politics, I would like to see some ability for analysis.
In Kasparov's case, unfortunately, I have always seen only a propaganda of a one-sided and largely unfounded narrative.
PS
I am posting it for others' information and discussion. As for myself, I do not participate in argumentation.
The post that was quoted here has been removedAnyway, it is impossible to argue or debate with Paul Martin, because he declares that some view is nonsense without providing any arguments whatsoever.
It is precisely because of such uncivilised and unintelligent posts on the Forum of RedHotPawn that I do not want to participate in any non-chess debates here.
Paul Martin's reply is also logically nonsensical, because other readers can criticise my post, providing some arguments, then other readers can reply, etc.
1 edit
@Nanomaster saidThen perhaps the general forum was the wrong location for this thread, hey?
Anyway, it is impossible to argue or debate with Paul Martin, because he declares that some view is nonsense without providing any arguments whatsoever.
It is precisely because of such uncivilised and unintelligent posts on the Forum of RedHotPawn that I do not want to participate in any non-chess debates here.
Paul Martin's reply is also logically nonsensical, beca ...[text shortened]... se other readers can criticise my post, providing some arguments, then other readers can reply, etc.
I think the nonsense reference relates to your assertion that the European Union was established to kill the Soviet Union economically, when in actuality its purpose was to encourage peace and economic cooperation among European nations, particularly in the aftermath of World War II.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidMy assertion that the European Union was established to economically kill the Soviet Union is based on Margaret Thatcher's archives, freely available on the internet.
Then perhaps the general forum was the wrong location for this thread, hey?
I think the nonsense reference relates to your assertion that the European Union was established to kill the Soviet Union economically, when in actuality its purpose was to encourage peace and economic cooperation among European nations, particularly in the aftermath of World War II.
It was quoted during Brexit by Brexiteers. The Brexiteers argued, among other things, that as the Soviet Union had collapsed, one reason for the existence of the European Union had vanished.
However, there are other grave factual mistakes or the ignoring of important facts in Kasparov's paper.
For example, Kasparov assumes that the European Union is so very democratic. However, it is well known that the European Commission is an unelected organ.
For example, Kasparov argues that Putin (Russia) violated the Minsk accord or something like that. He completely ignores the well-known, public fact that Ukraine and Western countries, participating in the Minsk accords, did not even intend to follow that agreement.
Ukraine's president, Poroshenko, declared publicly twice that the Minsk agreements were made only to win time, and that Ukraine had no intention to follow them.
Merkel publicly declared the same.
The French president, who participated in the Minsk agreements, publicly declared the same.
To my knowledge, when Zelensky became the president, he also said that Ukraine would not follow the Minsk agreements.
There were some other serious factual mistakes in Kasparov's paper, and very important facts he ignored.
Therefore, in no way do I think that my factual claims in my initial post were false or that my post was nonsense.
The General Forum was exactly the right place to share Kasparov's paper, together with my short comment that it contains factual mistakes and is rather propagandistic than analytical.
I also do not understand why you take the responsibility to interpret what the other disputant wanted to say, if that person was unable to say anything at all to explain his statement that my post was nonsense.
@Nanomaster saidIn a public forum I will respond to whatever post I choose. You seemed at a loss as to which part of your OP was nonsensical. As, to me, it was self evident, I was happy to point it out to you.
My assertion that the European Union was established to economically kill the Soviet Union is based on Margaret Thatcher's archives, freely available on the internet.
It was quoted during Brexit by Brexiteers. The Brexiteers argued, among other things, that as the Soviet Union had collapsed, one reason for the existence of the European Union had vanished.
However, ...[text shortened]... if that person was unable to say anything at all to explain his statement that my post was nonsense.
And perhaps don't base your argument on Margaret Thatcher or some random Brexiteer. Again, your assertion as to the reason for the formation of the EU is wrong. Below are the overarching motivators:
Preventing Future Wars:
The devastating effects of two World Wars in the first half of the 20th century prompted European leaders to seek ways to prevent future conflicts.
Economic Interdependence:
The idea was that by creating economic ties and interdependence among nations, particularly through trade, it would become more difficult for them to engage in warfare with each other.
European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC):
The first step towards European integration was the formation of the ECSC in 1951, which involved pooling the production of coal and steel, essential materials for both industry and warfare.
European Economic Community (EEC):
Following the ECSC, the EEC was established in 1957, with the goal of creating a common market and fostering closer economic cooperation among its founding members (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands).
Beyond Economics:
The EU has evolved to encompass a wide range of policy areas, including social development, environmental protection, and common foreign and security policies.
Nobel Peace Prize:
The EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012, recognizing its contribution to peace, democracy, and human rights in Europe,
(Wiki).
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
You have not even read Kasparov's article I shared. Everything you say is out of context. Kasparov argues that the European Union is very-very peaceful, but more confrontation is required. He cites the reasons for establishing the European Union. Unfortunately, he dismisses some of the reasons, and these reasons were pretty confrontational.
Margaret Thatcher was one of the key figures in establishing the European Union. My quick search on the internet gave me at once one (among many) quotations:
Margaret Thatcher,
"Speech in the Hague - 'Europe’s Political Architecture'"
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108296
1992 May 15:
"Western Europe did unite against the Soviet threat..."
"The Soviet threat made European co-operation imperative."
"With the collapse of the Soviet Union and reunion of Germany, the entire position has changed."
I do not appreciate your tone ("random Brexiteers", etc.).
Therefore, I do not respond anymore.
@Nanomaster saidWestern Europe recognising the Soviet threat (a threat that is still with us) is not the same as establishing a group of nations to kill the Soviet Union economically. I have given you the primary motivators for the formation of the EU and it is up to you to put your bias and selective reading aside.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
You have not even read Kasparov's article I shared. Everything you say is out of context. Kasparov argues that the European Union is very-very peaceful, but more confrontation is required. He cites the reasons for establishing the European Union. Unfortunately, he dismisses some of the reasons, and these reasons were pretty confrontational.
Margaret ...[text shortened]...
I do not appreciate your tone ("random Brexiteers", etc.).
Therefore, I do not respond anymore.
And stop listening to random Brexiteers,
@Nanomaster saidPlease post this type of question to the Debates Forum.
Garry Kasparov and Gabrielius Landsbergis have published an essay
"Europe’s Future Depends on Confrontation, Not Compromise"
Politico, 08/03/2025
www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/08/03/europe-future-authoritarianism-00490010
I am far from being sure that all the descriptions provided in that article correspond to reality.
For example, the article argues that ...[text shortened]... ing it for others' information and discussion. As for myself, I do not participate in argumentation.
You are wrong on the establishing of the European Union. Please research "Treaty of Rome"
@Ponderable saidI see that if one makes some critical remarks concerning grandmaster Kasparov (and/or concerning his political views), artificially, some bureaucratic pretexts are presented to suppress such posts.
Please post this type of question to the Debates Forum.
You are wrong on the establishing of the European Union. Please research "Treaty of Rome"
My answer is the following.
I shared Kasparov's paper.
It is written by a chessplayer, therefore, it belongs to chess platforms.
That paper is not about chess; therefore, it does not belong in the section "chess only".
I made only some remarks, but I did not present any theses to debate. My remarks did not concern the theses presented by Kasparov. For example, Kasparov argues that the European Union must be more confrontational to survive. I did not even comment on that thesis. - Therefore, my post does not belong to the "debates" section.
My only comments were about Kasparov's style, which I regard as propagandistic and not analytical. I also said that he has made several factual mistakes in his paper, or ignored some important facts. I did not address the issue of whether it undermines his main theses or not.
If merely briefly criticising the style of Kasparov's political articles unavoidably triggers a "debate" and not a discussion of his article, which I shared, then this is in no way my fault.
"You are wrong on the establishing of the European Union. Please research 'Treaty of Rome'."
- I do not understand. What makes you think that I have not read it?
Please post such remarks to the "debates" section.
@Nanomaster saidYou are not being suppressed. Your OP has simply been challenged for its blatant inaccuracies.
I see that if one makes some critical remarks concerning grandmaster Kasparov (and/or concerning his political views), artificially, some bureaucratic pretexts are presented to suppress such posts.
My answer is the following.
I shared Kasparov's paper.
It is written by a chessplayer, therefore, it belongs to chess platforms.
That paper is not about chess; th ...[text shortened]... d. What makes you think that I have not read it?
Please post such remarks to the "debates" section.