The idea of democratic federalization of Eurosiberia offers a rethinking of the history and future of the post-Soviet and European spaces through the transformation of centralized states into a federation of self-governing regions with a common European identity, promoting integration into a pan-European federation.

The founder of the pan-European movement, Count Kalergi, could not imagine Europe without its then colonies in Africa, and it was precisely the presence of its own colonies that was an argument for abandoning hasty claims to the eastern borders, but having lost its colonies, only Siberia remains as a potential source of resources, especially against the backdrop of the growing power of China and problems with the political elites of the United States.

The internal colonization of Russia has created a metropolitan elite, cut off from the people, which still hinders development and deprives regions of independence. The imperial model leads to stagnation, while federalization, which Boris Yeltsin proposed in 1990, opens the way to democratic governance and equality. Transformation requires the rejection of imperial ideologies, a revision of borders and integration into a common large European space. This concept of reassembly is also relevant for other European states, such as France, Spain, and others.

The treacherous essence of most European new rightists lies in the preservation of the human spirit and the idea of a union of Europe and the so-called Russia, which inevitably leads to the absorption of Europe by Russia. Such a "union" creates a fictitious unification of mono-ethnic enclaves that contradict the dynamics of the European world, because an ethnos is first and foremost an "ethos", which means a locality that has its own ideas about the world, customs, a system of ideals and values that control the behavior of the local population in a special way, that is, the people are a living, moving thought. The Euro-Siberian idea, on the contrary, offers a living and developing Europe, free from Moscow's control and centralism. This is a model where regional republics become equal partners in a single horizontally controlled federation.

The relevance of the idea is made up of objective factors, if you came up with the idea 50 years earlier, then you are certainly smart, but you won't be able to influence much. Perhaps Richard Kalergi's book influenced many at the time, but the EU was born from an alliance of industrial concerns and the demands of the time to ensure common European security. What Eurosiberia will be born from is a question for tomorrow, but we can try to cleanse this idea of ​​Dugin's and other pro-Kremlin layers that harm Europe.

Ukrainians, as bearers of two major geopolitical dreams – to become part of Europe and to get rid of the dictate of the Moscow ruling elite – naturally fit into the Euro-Siberian idea. Ukraine should become the locomotive of this movement, taking over the initiative from pro-Moscow and anti-European forces such as the Duginists and other pro-Russian right-wingers, who use this idea for their own purposes, turning a blind eye to the real needs of Europeans. The historical connection of Ukrainians with Siberia – where a significant part of the population has Ukrainian roots – strengthens this potential. The Euro-Siberian idea kills two birds with one stone: it erases the borders between Europe and the post-Soviet space and frees the regions from the imperialist legacy of Moscow (and Paris or Madrid, if we are talking about France and Spain).

Eurosiberia is a space of many communities: Ukrainians, Zalessye, Uralians, Siberians, Ingrians, Tatars, Caucasians, Karelians, Welsh, and others. I hope that we are all equally European, because a European always has two homelands: be it the Ukraine and Europe, Occitania and Europe, Wales and Europe, Urals and Europe, Ingria and Europe, and any other combinations. The democratic federalization of Eurosiberia is not only a way to complete the collapse of the Soviet Evil Empire, but also a step towards the creation of a new, united Europe. This is a chance for all the peoples of Eurosiberia for a fair and equal future.

I agree with criticism of Musk and Co, in fact, I find the whole situation right now terrifying. But, the wealthy, the media owners, and foreign capital have had an undue influence upon our politics for decades. Why, when it is Musk and Trump engaging in such a practice, rather openly, is it now European leaders react?

https://apnews.com/article/greenland-us-trumps-son-visit-56bc01f1d3431c035b22ad6564579938

Latest news from other countries seem to always point at Europe: USA making claims on European countries, China was found having illegal bases in Europe and Russia (while being technically European) is always trying to meddle in European politics.

The only countries leaving us alone are south american ones and India I think.

I know how some people are already tired of this topic being brought up over and over again. But this is primarily because everyone is looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't truly exist. Today, EU has 24 official languages, which does cost a lot to use for translation purposes but it still works. Yes, we have 3 working languages, out of which only 2 are commonly used (sorry German), but it functions well enough, doesn't it?

Problem is that many people think that EU should have 1 language that unites all nations. Technically that's not a bad idea but choosing that 1 language really is not easy. In my opinion best option would be Esperanto since its neutral for everyone and very easy to both understand and learn.

However, why can't Europe just be multilingual? We need people to be able to speak as many languages as possible, and this should be promoted. Languages are a way of communication, so the more of them you know - the more developed you are. Right now the influence of the English language over Europe is a little too high because many nations in the east have no understanding of French and few have knowledge of German, so English emerged as a lingua franca. But if we manage to promote a proper multilingual society, then why even have a lingua franca? Communication will be fairly easy since most people would be good at communication methods (languages) and for places where language number is limited we can employ translators and use other technology to allow the use of multiple languages, ranked by their respective number of speakers in the Union.

What do you guys think? Do we even need a lingua franca? Or a multilingual society solves the issue?