Eastern Europe is better off under the Russian Sphere of Influence

Please Note: The reason why that I've made it 4 rounds is because this can become a very deep debate that will focus on a broad range of topics.But now for the fun to begin! Well I would like to begin on replying to the argument that history is irrelevant to this whole debate. The historical timeline of the Eastern Europe is what has shaped their culture and their behavior with each other and towards different cultures. You see most of Eastern Europe have been not only racially but ethnically homogenous for many decades. They have never had colonies in the Middle East or Africa so they tend to be a lot less open to outsiders. What the European Union has been doing since the early 90s when the Eastern bloc opened up, was try to get them to integrate with the rest of Europe. What Western Europe has done was take advantage of these people for cheap labor, in comparison to Eastern Europe. The average German produces two times more then the average Pol when it comes to GDP per capita (http://www.indexmundi.com...(ppp).html)(http://www.indexmundi.com...(ppp).html). Although you can say they are a lot more free to express opinions, their unemployment rate is also a lot more free to skyrocket (http://www.worldbank.org...). Now what also needs to be discussed is the idea that some countries tend to be luckier than others when it comes to integration with the West. While countries like the Czech Republic have fared pretty well, other countries that are further away from the West, geographically speaking, have not done so well. It seems when you allow some people to express their hatreds you get something a lot worse than communism. In 1992-1995, the Bosnian Genocide occurred in which thousands of Muslim Bosnian women were raped by Serbian soldiers as a form of psychological warfare and also genocide that caused the deaths of 200,000 people (http://www.historyplace.com...). The reason why I bring this up is because I'd like to point out that although some Eastern European countries did well there were many who needed Russian political influence as a way of keeping ethnic tensions at bay (http://www.independent.co.uk...). To this day, there is still tension between Serbians and Bosnians who absolutely despise each other. Although you don't see mass levels of genocide, I assure you there is still hatred towards one another that is quite deep and complicated (http://www.worldbulletin.net...). Now when there was Russian influence in Yugoslavia, everything was basically atheist and these ethnic tensions had to stay underground where they belonged and not in the newspapers of 1993. Although the European Union has recognized Bosnia and even Kosovo, there is a lot more hatred in Serbia than you think. You can find the same in Ukraine where Ukrainian Russians are a despised minority. In Ukraine most of the people want to keep it purely Ukrainian and want every Russian to leave, and they will despise you for even speaking Russian. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union everything in Ukraine has been nothing but a demographic numbers game in order to make it purely Ukrainian (http://www.bbc.com...). So my point is that not every country in post-Soviet Russia has done well, and in fact many countries have not succeeded as a prosperous economic entity due to ethnic and religious tensions that the Soviet Empire was able to keep down. Now speaking of ethnic tensions, I will actually return to talking about Slovakia and Poland. I would like to point out that Poland is a staunchly Roman Catholic country that doesn't even allow abortions. This country proudly shows off its Battle of Vienna in 1683 against the Islamic Invasion of the Ottomans. Poland has already said during the Syrian Refugee crisis that it will only accept Christian refugees because the country does not want Muslims on its land(http://www.ft.com...). Roughly half of Poland has negative views about Islam and yet the European Commission still insists that Poland take in more refugees (http://www.euractiv.com...). In my first argument I explained that at the moment the only thing the EU can do is compare these countries to Nazis, which makes no sense when Germany and Austria were the real Nazis in the first place. I also talked about how they are backing a European Union Army that WILL take the idea of an Economic Union and turn it into a militaristic one. My main question is, why does Angela Merkel want a European Union Army so badly? It makes no sense if the European countries can defend themselves already. It seems as though the European Commission feels powerless when they can only name-call (http://www.express.co.uk...). Something harsh is bound to happen with this idea of a European Union Army and the results may become a lot worse. You see, the European Union was not flat-out an authoritarian state like the Soviet Union but they are creeping into one. The most Ironic part of all is that Germany is the one leading the pack on trying to make it much more authoritative then ever. So I ask my opponent this question, what need is there for a European Union Army? Why does Merkel order and expect Cameron to do her bidding? Didn't the Soviet Union have an army that did the exact same thing? And if left wing governments are allowed to express their opinion, why can't right wing governments be left alone to have their ideologies respected? We like to pretend that if gays and liberals are allowed to have their own opinions then everything is fine, but if a conservative European wishes to express an opinion in Sweden this is what happens (). You see there is something a lot deeper then just economic equality, something that wreaks of Authoritarianism and it is rapidly arriving in the European Union.