Russia: No CFE treaty for you!

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


A, hello..

1. They did give aid to Turkey (at the second meeting)

2. Turkey was not under attack, and the threat to turkey would only materialize if the US took aggresive action not authorized by NATO or the UN.

They had the second meeting without France, IIRC. France remained implacably opposed to aiding Turkey.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, I think you are missing the point. With Russia behaving in an increasingly autocratic manner, with their deliberately keeping bases in two countries against those countries' consent, with the dictator of Belerus doing his "thing," the Eastern front is becoming more dangerous by the minute to bordering states. They need protection.

Agreed. There is a reason Eastern Europe entered NATO, and that was to make sure never to fall under Russia's authority again. I think the American bases would better be located in the new States rather than in Germany.

France and Germany have recently demonstrated that they will not protect an alliance member if that members asks.

I must have missed something, but when did we fail to protect one of our allies? When was the last time an ally was attacked and we didn't scramble to protect it?

Further, France and Germany have all but inked a formal alliance with Putin.

Let's see:

Ont the one hand, we have:
NATO: troops under common command. Foreign bases in the territory. Several interventions already done (Kosovo, Afghanistan), and at least two peacekeeping missions currently occuring.
Atlantic Alliance: The same as above, except for the common command and the foreign bases bit.

On the other hand, we have:
Axis of Ned: common disagreement against an attack by a country on another. No military cooperation, no bases, no common operations.

Yeah, France and Germany are clearly much more integrated with Russia than with the US

Given this, Poland and the Baltic states truly need American support and bases and need France and Germany out of the alliance.

Yes, the bases would be better off in Poland than in Germany. No, there is definitely no need to push France and Germany out the alliance.
I don't know for you, but I much prefer to have a nuclear country, equipped with one of the most modern militaries in the world, within my alliance than without

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


They had the second meeting without France, IIRC. France remained implacably opposed to aiding Turkey.

No NATO member is obligated to give aid BEFORE a member has been attacked, specially when the threat may be non-existent, or when the action is being taken as a precaution in case some party launched and unauthorized aggresive action.

So you are blowing smoke out your butt on this issue Ned.

[Tripledoc]

Since when has Turkey ever been a friend of America?

The way I recall it the Turkish government did not bow to continuing american wooing and bribes to allow troop movements through it's territory before the US agression against Iraq.

No Turk is happy about the American bases in their country.

During the Cuban misslie crisis the USA betrayed Turkey by withdrawing their short range nuclear missiles from US bases, in order that Russia withdraw their missiles from Cuba. That after the US had failed in their invasion of Cuba.

The average Turk knows full well that the Fascist paramilitary group, the Grey Wolves, is supported and trained by NATO. This group is responsible for several murders against Turkish students and political activists.

Despite US support for the former military dictatorship in Turkey and their genocide of kurdish Communists, now the US has changed its stance, when it benefitted them to defeat Saddam, and is now supportive of the Kurdish independence movement.

I fail to see how Turkey can see any good from continuing being America's lapdog. Especially now when Turkey is so desperately trying to evolve into a true Democratic state.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yes, just like he had allies in pretty much the whole Arab world, a large chunk of Asia, etc.

The offensive war decided by the US went completely against France's interests, and France opposed it. Just like you'd oppose France going to war against one of your clients.

This hostility to the American offensive did not mean we were hostile to America itself.

And regarding the Poles: we were disappointed that they didn't follow France and Germany like the poodle we expected them to be. Yet, even with this disappointment, there is not any reason to go to war and invade them. Maybe this little bit espace Americans, but countries generally don't decide invasions on a whim.

Stop dissing Americans - it's just Ned being a moron

[Spiffor]

Don't worry Skywalker, I know Americans generally have a better understanding of the world than Ned (but it is also true we Euros take wars much, much more gravely than Americans)

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Man Serb are you still talking. I figured with a mouth as big as yours your government would have silenced you long ago.

Aside you, I live in a free country.

[Ned]

Spiffor, anyone who claims to speak for Americans, for the American right, or anyone with reason, is, well ....Skywalker.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by paiktis22
From what I know you only need to see the UK negotiating within the EU family to actually start wondering wether it is a member of this family or a NAFTA member. As for concrete actions, Shenghen, constitution (even such silly things as echelon) and of course euro and federalist idea not to mention euroarmy and of course foreign policy (3rd pillar) are just some of the most concrete examples. The UK is creating way too many variable geometries in critical matters. Getting it out of the EU or isolated is thge only way to effectively deal with it untill and if it changes. It's actually something that has characterized its relations with what the continental states have achieved so far.

The european idea is something clear, those who wonder is because they propably haven't really understood it.

I don;t think it's suspicion. Suspicion is when sopmeone looks at you the wrong way. When he's trying to rip your arm apart I think it goes beyond suspicion

Your examples are pathetic. Britain is not the only country to not have joined the euro, and of those that have, France and Germany are failing to be good europeans by flouting the budget rules. The failure of the constitution had little to do with Britain, and everything to do with other members.

As far as trade goes, Britain almost always takes the side of the EU in trade negotiations, and gets punished just as much as any other EU member by America's erratic trade policies.

Britain was hardly alone in supporting the war in Iraq; what about Spain and Italy? And British public opinion was opposed to the war, like in the rest of Europe. Also, Britain has worked with France and Germany in the diplomatic approach towards Iran.

Britain supports the European rapid reaction force, whilst other, traditionally neutral, countries do not. Britain was also the last country to impose controls on economic migrants from the new Eastern members, as Blair caved into pressure from the right-wing press. All the other EU members except Ireland have also taken such anti-European measures.

Britain is not standing in the way of reforming EU agriculture, either. That's France's job, protecting its hordes of little farms.

If the European idea is so clear, could you please articulate it?

Your problem with Britain is basically prejudice. Anything Britain does is viewed through that prism.

[Tripledoc]

Here is an article by paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan published in Anti-war.com.

What Are We Doing in Russia's Neighborhood?

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Napoleon III, Emperor of France, saw his opportunity.

With the United States sundered and convulsed in civil war, he would seize Mexico, impose a Catholic monarchy and block further expansion of the American republic.

In 1863, a French army marched into Mexico City. In 1864, Maximilian, the brother of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, was crowned Emperor of Mexico. The French empire had returned to North America a century after its expulsion in 1763.

Secretary of State Seward did nothing until the Union armies had defeated the Confederacy. Then, he called in Gen. John Schofield, who had wanted to lead an army of volunteers into Mexico to drive the French out, and instructed him instead to go to Paris. "I want you to get your legs under Napoleon's mahogany and tell him he must get out of Mexico," Seward told Schofield. To impress upon Napoleon that the Union was in earnest, President Johnson, at the urging of Grant and Sherman, sent Gen. Sheridan with 40,000 troops to the Rio Grande.

Napoleon got the message. The French army headed for the boats, and Maximilian went before a Mexican firing squad.

Lesson: Nations are unwise to seize upon the temporary weakness of a great power to put military forces inside its sphere of influence.

Which brings us to this headline in last week's Washington Post: "U.S. May Set Up Bases in Former Soviet Republics."

The lead graph reads like something out of the London Times in the salad days of Kipling and Queen Victoria: "Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that the United States might establish military bases in parts of the former Soviet empire, but he sought to reassure Russians that increased U.S. influence in the region does not pose a threat to them." With bases already in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, we apparently intend to build a base in Georgia, birthplace of Stalin.

Query: What are we doing there? What is the strategic interest in Georgia? Tbilisi is about as far away as one can get. Why are we rubbing Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat by putting U.S. imperial troops into nations that only yesterday were a part of that country? Powell anticipated the question: "Are we pointing a dagger in the soft underbelly of Russia? Of course not. What we're doing is working together against terrorism."

But after Iraq, where we invaded an oil-rich country on what the world believes were false pretenses and forged evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why should Russians not suspect our motives?

After all, the neoconservatives who beat the drums loudest for war, and cherry-picked the intelligence sent to Bush that got us into war, have been braying for years that we intend to create an American empire and impose our "benevolent global hegemony" on all mankind.

Why should Russians, Chinese and Iranians not believe America's crusader castles in Central Asia and the Caucasus are not part of a grand scheme for a Pax Americana?

Have we forgotten our history? When Reagan put Marines into the middle of Lebanon's civil war, 241 perished in the terrorist bombing of their Beirut barracks. Reagan retaliated, but got out. He should never have gone in. Who runs Beirut or rules Lebanon is not our business.

When we intervened in Somalia's civil war, we got "Blackhawk Down" in Mogadishu and 18 dead Rangers. Again, we pulled out. We should never have gone in. When we planted a U.S. army on Saudi soil after the Gulf War, we got 9-11. Now we have pulled out of there.

How often must we be taught the lesson?

Have we considered the consequences of planting military bases in countries afflicted by Islamic fundamentalism and ruled by autocrats who, only 15 years ago, were apparatchiks of Moscow?

A U.S. imperial presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus resented by Russia, Iran and China and detested by Islamists is less likely to contain terrorism than to invite it.

Even a cursory reading of U.S. history shows us to be an almost paranoid people about any foreign military presence near our frontiers. The French, British, Spanish and Russians were all bought off or driven out. Moscow's presence in Cuba and meddling in Grenada and Nicaragua in the Cold War were constant causes of American outrage.

But if we are entitled to our own Monroe Doctrine – i.e., no foreign colonies or bases in our backyard – are not other great nations like China and Russia equally entitled? Why should they not feel as we do, and one day act as we did with Napoleon, and tell us to get out of Central Asia and to get out of the Caucasus?

But, again, why are we going in? Other than empire, what is the vital interest here?

So essentially the bases to the south of Russia are sitting ducks for targeting by fundamentalist guerillas.

Even if Russia is not as paranoid as the US, and believe the Americans have the best of intentions, the bases will be a potential source of distabilisation.

So if a base is attacked by suicide bombers like in Lebanon in 82 America will naturally have to retaliate and pour more troops and firepower into the area.

[Barinthus]

Just in case... the following countries are member of EU:
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdoms.

[Spiffor]

Yep, but in two months, you will add the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus.

[Tripledoc]

A 'right of passage' between Europe and China?

Brussels, 12 February 2004

European Union signs landmark tourism accord with China today in Beijing

On 12 February 2004, the European Community and the China National Tourism Administration signed a landmark accord that will facilitate Chinese group tourism to Europe. Chinese tourists going through selected travel agencies will benefit from simplified and facilitated procedures to apply for tourist visas from the Member States of the European Union which have been granted "Approved Destination Status"(ADS) by China. The agreement also includes provisions allowing return of possible Chinese over-stayers. The new accord is expected to enter into force before the summer and will generate significant flows of Chinese visitors to Europe, thus boosting EU-China tourism exchanges and people-to-people contacts.

Commenting on the signature, EU External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten said: "This agreement is good news for China and for Europe. I look forward to seeing more Chinese tourists here, and I hope many will take up the new opportunity to travel. Human contacts really do make a difference, and I believe this new agreement will help Europe and China to understand each other better, as well as bringing new commercial opportunities. The next step is to deepen our co-operation on migration in all its forms".
.....

Thanks to the increase in living standards and gradual relaxation of travel constraints, more and more Chinese people travel abroad. Chinese outbound tourism amounted to 20 million visitors in 2003 (+22%). According to the World Tourism Organization, China could well become the number one tourist destination in the world and a major source of outbound tourism, with an estimated 100 million outbound travellers by 2020.

In 2002, 645,000 Chinese tourists travelled to the EU, whereas 1,3 million European tourists visited China. It is expected that the ADS agreement will generate significant numbers of new Chinese tourists in Europe and foster closer EU-China people to people links.

This seems to be another step towards a Pax Eurasia.

Complete Press release here

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Sandman


Your examples are pathetic.

Let us see why.

Britain is not the only country to not have joined the euro, and of those that have, France and Germany are failing to be good europeans by flouting the budget rules.

Indeed the UK is not the only one. However it is the one ripping huge benefits from not having done it and the one who's the furthest away from actually doing it in the future. In order to protect some rather shortlived national benefits the UK has seriously put a dent to the development of a Union which it does not relly believe at but wants to be a member. 13 of the 15 member states, including Germany and France (BTW without whose great achievement to be friends there wouldn't be an EU) all did that sacrifice in the name and vision of the Union of peace.

UK simply gave it the middle finger after having virtually begged to be a member of it.

Notice a small amount of "difference of mentality" here?

Also UK agreed to have Germany and France escape the sanctions. So blame yourselves if you must blame someone.

The failure of the constitution had little to do with Britain, and everything to do with other members.

The UK has systematically tried to undermine any effort for further integration except a loose economic one since it was let to join and the last effort was no exception. The Uk was instrumental in the failure of the constitution.

As far as trade goes, Britain almost always takes the side of the EU in trade negotiations, and gets punished just as much as any other EU member by America's erratic trade policies.

I'm sorry but :loooooooooooooooooool:

The UK practically acts as the US agent in most trade minister meetings.
The fact that it agrees to uphold EU policy after it is decided is because, frankly, you don't have the right not to.

Britain was hardly alone in supporting the war in Iraq; what about Spain and Italy?

Italy and Spain did it for internal EU pressure reasons. The UK did to remain in the favor of the US. And has always taken a pro US stance not only in this issue.

Britain supports the European rapid reaction force, whilst other, traditionally neutral, countries do not.

Again, Britain systematically lobbied for the american positions. Whichwere incompatible with EU purposes.

Britain is not standing in the way of reforming EU agriculture, either. That's France's job, protecting its hordes of little farms.

And thankfully so some might say. Meanwhile the UK is opposing virtually everything else. Thr factthat you don't want social justice doesn't make you pro EU.

If the European idea is so clear, could you please articulate it?

The commitment to build a peaceful Europe.

Your problem with Britain is basically prejudice. Anything Britain does is viewed through that prism.

The problem is Britain.

[Bereta_Eder]

And to be even more specific the abhorance the UK government shows towards the EU is almost pathological.

However just wanting to make the Union not work because simply you don't want nothing more than a loose economic area to trade your goods is bad enough.

The UK asked twice to be let in the Union it itself has said it won't work. Your national policy seems to be the constant undermining of this Union from the moment you set foot in it. Everything you do IS viewed by this prism since it's the one you use as a way to view the Union.

notes:
When I say you I mean your, all, your governments.
You will notice that many countries have differences but none have taken such an old hardcore nationalistic approach to them and devoided of any spirit of mutual consitiation and compromise as the UK has.

I'm not prejudisted against the UK. It is its stance that makes it anti EU. And since Greece's interests lay in the EU's interests I'm simply more vocal in expressing what is widely acknowledged in Brussels.

[Patroklos]

A peaceful Europe eh? did I miss out on a few European wars since 1945? Some unpleasentness between Greece and Turkey and turmoil in the Balkens, but as far as the members that people think of when you say "Europe" not a thing.

After Afghanistain don't expect the Uzbek bases and the like to be open long. As they are they are pathetically small logistical bases. We are talking about 10,000 troops spread over 4000-5000 square miles. They will probobly move into Afganistan proper in a few years anyways. If Russia is sacared of that, well, they have some other problems to deal with.

I don't seriously think the US will close it's Germany bases and move wholesale to Poland or the Baltics. At most you will get a leased Navy yard in the Baltic and some rented airfield space in the caucusses.

And if the former SSR's are a little apprehensive over their meglomanic neighbor, who does Russia have to blame for that? It seems to me Russia used the same excuse to gobble up and oppress Eastern Europe after WWII.

[Bereta_Eder]

And a note about Denmark and Sweden being outside the eurozone. There were geniuine fears about what this could doto their social welfare state. It was an internal society dilema. The UK didn't have such problems because frankly your social welfare is not as high a level. (as a side note you are very opposite to anything conserning workers protections and rights when it is discussed in the EU legislature).

You stayed out of the euro for plainly nationalistic reasons and "state interests". All I'm saying is if you define your state interests as so much incompatible with the EU maybe the two should part ways, and there is such a provision in the new constitution.

Let me just say that this is my opinion (actually Brussels opinion) about the UK and the EU. I hope I don't have to be degraded and be so corny as to say that I have nothing against it and there lots of things I like about it.

[Sandman]

Indeed the UK is not the only one. However it is the one ripping huge benefits from not having done it and the one who's the furthest away from actually doing it in the future. In order to protect some rather shortlived national benefits the UK has seriously put a dent to the development of a Union which it does not relly believe at but wants to be a member. 13 of the 15 member states, including Germany and France (BTW without whose great achievement to be friends there wouldn't be an EU) all did that sacrifice in the name and vision of the Union of peace.

Also UK agreed to have Germany and France escape the sanctions. So blame yourselves if you must blame someone.

France and Germany flout the rules and it's Britain's fault? Don't be so ridiculous; they'd have done it regardless of what Britain did.

Where's the sacrifice in ignoring the budget rules? Where's the sacrifice in restricting migration from Eastern Europe? Where's the sacrifice in subsidizing farmers and giving MEPs outrageous salaries and perks?

The UK has systematically tried to undermine any effort for further integration except a loose economic one since it was let to join and the last effort was no exception. The Uk was instrumental in the failure of the constitution.

Britain repeatedly stated that it was satisfied with the constitution. The constitution failed because Spain and Poland were not willing to make 'sacrifices' in their voting strengths. No doubt these are the result of 'genuine fears' in your view, whereas had Britain done the same, it would be down to 'narrow, nationalistic interests'.

The UK practically acts as the US agent in most trade minister meetings.

The fact that it agrees to uphold EU policy after it is decided is because, frankly, you don't have the right not to.

No it doesn't. Britain supported the EU position on steel tarrifs (even though it didn't have to), for example.

Italy and Spain did it for internal EU pressure reasons. The UK did to remain in the favor of the US. And has always taken a pro US stance not only in this issue.

What would these 'internal EU pressure reasons' be? You're just making this stuff up. If Aznar and Belusconi had stars and stripes tatooed on their faces you'd still claim they were 'good Europeans' as opposed to 'bad boy Britain'. They gave Bush full support.

Issues where Britain has not taken a pro US stance: Kyoto, ICC, Iran, landmines, child soldiers, Israel, etc.

Again, Britain systematically lobbied for the american positions. Whichwere incompatible with EU purposes.

Since Britain is member of the EU, it's able to influence the position. This is known as a compromise; something you've forgotten. It's not like there's a consistent American position to lobby for anyway.

And thankfully so some might say. Meanwhile the UK is opposing virtually everything else. Thr fact that you don't want social justice doesn't make you pro EU.

It's not a question of opposing things. There's no 'right way', regardless of what you might think. And the EU's interest in social justice is just a hobby. It's profession is hard-core capitalism.

The commitment to build a peaceful Europe.

"this is why it is important for the EU to isolate the UK (or at best case scenario get rid of it without repercussions)"

"unless us/uk change their policies but I doubt this can be done without being forced to do so."

"I don't think complacency towards the UK is the way to go. I think the only langauge it understands is force. It has never shared the european ideal and degaulle's phrase of the brits being the worm that will eat the red apple from within becomes more and more prophetic."

You're not interested in a peaceful Europe. You're interested in a 'Eumerica', complete with war-mongering and moronic patriotism, denouncing all those who question it as anti-european/unpatriotic.

The problem is Britain.

The problem is bigots who are unable to create a stable identity for themselves without indulging in hatred. What, are the Americans too far away or something? Do you need someone to hate closer to home?

The UK asked twice to be let in the Union it itself has said it won't work. Your national policy seems to be the constant undermining of this Union from the moment you set foot in it. Everything you do IS viewed by this prism since it's the one you use as a way to view the Union.

Right. Britain supported enlargement of the EU; no doubt this was all part of a sinister plot to weaken it. Poland is causing trouble before it even joined, and will doubtless continue to. But it's not Britain, so it will be ignored.

You will notice that many countries have differences but none have taken such an old hardcore nationalistic approach to them and devoided of any spirit of mutual consitiation and compromise as the UK has.

It's an illusion that you're happy to maintain. You've demonstrated no interest in conciliation or compromise with the British position; preferring to advocate turfing it out. Britain has compromised on many occasions; otherwise it wouldn't be in the EU at all.

As far as I'm concerned, you're the old hardcore nationalist; the fact that it's European nationalism makes no difference.

And a note about Denmark and Sweden being outside the eurozone. There were geniuine fears about what this could doto their social welfare state. It was an internal society dilema. The UK didn't have such problems because frankly your social welfare is not as high a level. (as a side note you are very opposite to anything conserning workers protections and rights when it is discussed in the EU legislature).

You stayed out of the euro for plainly nationalistic reasons and "state interests". All I'm saying is if you define your state interests as so much incompatible with the EU maybe the two should part ways, and there is such a provision in the new constitution.

Yeah, well, there were 'genuine fears' as to what the euro and certain regulations could do with to Britain's economy. Oh wait, you'd call this 'old hardcore nationalism'. One rule for Britain, another for every other EU country, that's what it is.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by paiktis22
The UK has systematically tried to undermine any effort for further integration except a loose economic one since it was let to join and the last effort was no exception. The Uk was instrumental in the failure of the constitution.

I know that it is fashionable in Europe to portray Britain as the American Trojan Horse in EU co-operation.

However the way I understand it, it was Polish and Spanish concern about solely economic affairs, which brought them into the position of rejecting the constitution.

Of course their demand for political influence was over the top. The population in those two countries does simply not warrant that kind of influence. Yet France has 30 million less citizens than Germany, and how come Germany does not complian about that?

Now, as far as I understand, there is presently an understanding between Germany, Poland and Spain on bilateral terms. It is of course unfortunate that the unresolved issues were not solved within the EU institutions.

Yet the way I understand EU co-operation, the German-Polish-Spanish deal will eventually be incorporated into the EU structure.

I am absolutely convinced that any sane Brit will see the benefit of working with the Europeans, especially because the issues which are agreed upon have so far reaching consequences, and are not just erratic foreign policy adventures.

In other words, as goes for 'hard' foreign policy Britain will follow the US, regarding 'soft' social and economic issues Britain will follow Europe. And that has something to do with basic facts of economics, and the way societies in general tend to evolve.

[Ned]

Tripledoc, interesting article from that paleo-conservative Buchanan.

Somehow I feel that liberating Mexico from Franch occupation as an example of what Russia will do with our troops in Poland and the Baltic states is not a fair analogy.

As to the Turkish states of Central Asia having US bases - why not? There is a war on terror under way and these states are targets. I expect they want US support and welcome our bases. This has nothing to do with Russia.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Serb
Aside you, I live in a free country.

Not for much longer.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned

Somehow I feel that liberating Mexico from Franch occupation as an example of what Russia will do with our troops in Poland and the Baltic states is not a fair analogy.

Well, judging from the anti-Bush hatred in America, no doubt he is running into similar danger as Maximillian. And while he will surely not be executed, he runs the danger of handing power over to the Democrats, of whom, of course, Buchanan is no friend. In other words, a vote for a democractic candidate is essentially a rejection of Republican foreign policy and 'imperialist' ambitions.

As to the Turkish states of Central Asia having US bases - why not? There is a war on terror under way and these states are targets. I expect they want US support and welcome our bases. This has nothing to do with Russia.

Well, Russia might not be concerned with the US bases. however they might be concerned that these bases will provoke anti-US sentiment in these areas, and spark terrorist attacks. Especially since the US bases seem to be showing an acknowledgement of the autocratic and dictatorial regimes which have allowed these bases. The opposition will see the US presence as a confirmation from the US towards the ruling dictatorships.

It is mistaken to say 'they' when you speak of the political regimes in these countries. 'They' is perhaps more of a tiny corrupt nomenklatura.

And how will the US react if they are attacked in those areas? If they withdraw that will weaken the dictatorships, and give hope to the muslim resistance. If the US military is strengthened, it will give further reasons for rebellion, and it might be viewed from Moscow as a strategic threat.

And what exactly is the US doning there in the first place? Seems to me to be an excuse for military escalation. I mean if you widen the front you need more troops. It should be basic mathematical knowledge.

[Heresson]

How is it a threat to ask for acces to bases bordering it's territory. Surely the Russians will grant acces to their bases.

You make me laugh. Nothing boarders their territory, bases in Poland are - for obvious reasons - in its western part, while a big part of Russian military potential is located in Krolewiec/Kaliningrad. Will they grant access to their bases? At the end of ww2, Moscow didn't give access to their bases to their western allies which wanted to use them to help uprising in Warsaw. Just a note.

And making fun of the Russian's fight against Chechnian nationalists and fundamentalists, who want to split from the internationally recognized territory of Russia,

That's not wise. That due to their egoism, other nations don't recognise Chechen right to independance, that doesn't mean Russians are legitimised to do there what they wish.

when Russia has just lost fifty citizens in a Chechen attack in Moscow is a bit tasteless.

I'm sorry for them, but Chechenia looses more citizens constantly, and You don't seem to care.

But maybe the Poles hope to get back the territory they lost to the Soviet Union in 1945. Well Poland was adequately compensated and given German land instead.

You've proven to be ignorant again. If it was German land, it's a matter of discussion. Surely our losses weren't "adequately" compensated. Poland was cut down by 1/4 or 1/3, depandant on counting. And it's not a matter of Polish-Russian relations, as though Poland had and had had claims towards Krolewiec/Kaliningrad, we lost lands to Lithuania, Ukraine and Byelorus, we have very good relations with first two, and we do not have any claims towards the third, despite the opression Poles and catholics face there.

Well, I have always said since the very begining, that NATO expansion was a huge mistake. You can't include former Soviet Union States into your alliance and expect Russia not to see it as an encroachment on their national security.

Then, Russian bases in Russia are encroachment on NATO's security too.

Last time I looked Turkey did not border the North Atlantic. Nor does Poland for that matter

Mediterrean and Baltic are geographically part of Northern Atlantic...

Oh, I agree with most Saras writes here.

[Tripledoc]

Well it is good to know that paranoid nationalism is also a feature of modern Europe.

I vote against Poland joining the EU if that is the prevelant attutide there. Too much hate based on old disagreements.

Lack of basic knowledge of geography too.

[Heresson]

Now You're being silly.
Lack of basic knowledge of geography is something You should be ashamed of. Perhaps they teach You something different, but I learned that seas are parts of the oceans, unless they are inland seas (then, they are lakes actually, but are called seas due to their size or to tradition). If the Mediterrean isn't North Atlantic, shouldn't we apply that to the North Sea as well?
Nationalism? The only nationalism I've seen here is the russian one. Old disagreements? It would have been true if not the fact that I've just discussed. If Russia thinks it can decide politics of its neighbours, these disagreements aren't old, they are damn present. Man, You're supporting imperial ambition of one state and fighting them You call nationalism

[Barinthus]

I saw this article and thought it was relevant to the discussion in this thread. I'm curious to your opinion especially those who have lived in the former USSR.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions
Losing Russia
To prevent a 'cold peace,' the West must retreat from Cold War policies
By Charles William Maynes
Charles William Maynes is president of the Eurasia Foundation, which promotes political and economic reform in the former Soviet Union. He is the former editor of Foreign Policy.

February 15, 2004

WASHINGTON — It's hard to believe it was just last September when President Bush stood beside Russian President Vladimir V. Putin at Camp David and announced, "I respect President Putin's vision for Russia." Since then, things have turned decidedly sour.

In recent telephone conversations with his Russian counterpart, the president has expressed his displeasure over Russian actions in Chechnya and the nation's "failure to pursue democratic reforms." The U.S. ambassador to Moscow complained publicly in December about Russia's "breach of values," saying that recent Russian actions "could limit possibilities of expansion of our cooperation." And when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell visited Russia last month, he wrote a front-page essay for Izvestia in which he prodded Moscow on its human rights record in Chechnya, for its increasing media controls and for the arrest of Yukos Oil Co.'s former chief executive, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

To understand why Russia and the United States are drifting apart again, it's crucial to understand just how differently Russians and Westerners view the 1990s. The West saw the decade as one of liberation and burgeoning democracy for Russia. Western observers felt that Russia was finally rejoining Europe politically and economically.

But for Russians, it was a decade of disintegration and false promises. At the beginning of the 1990s, Russia was an uninspiring, drab and politically repressive place, but it had a strong middle class and functioning institutions. By the end of a decade, it was something close to a failed state. Russians were glad to be able to speak their minds, but they watched helplessly as crime and other social ills took hold and the economy became wildly unstable. Tens of millions of Russians found themselves impoverished, as the government could no longer pay pensions and factories could no longer meet payrolls because of the disruption of internal trade. "Price reforms" led to massive inflation and overnight wiped out family savings accounts.

Even as they witnessed Russian suffering, most Western experts showed little concern for the pain inflicted and urged Russia to stay the capitalist course. The West held this position until the very day the financial dam finally burst in August 1998, when the Russian government devalued the ruble and suspended payment on most of its foreign debt.

Many Russians now see that disastrous era as the consequence of pursuing Western-style democracy and following Western-proffered advice. By contrast, they associate the current era of growing prosperity with Putin's coming to power.

To Russians, Putin's record of successes is impressive. Back wages and pensions are being paid. Growth is vigorous. Consumer goods are again being manufactured at home. Russia has paid off most of its foreign debt. And if high oil prices have been the single most significant factor in reversing Russia's fortunes, so what? Russians still credit Putin with the reversal, pointing to an impressive growth in domestic production and sound taxation policies that have also contributed to both growth and the restoration of health in public finances. Russians are pleased that their country is again a major player in foreign relations and that foreign leaders take Putin seriously in a way they never did his predecessor, Boris N. Yeltsin.

Yet there is abundant cause for concern about many of Putin's actions. He shows no signs of modifying Russia's brutal suppression of Chechnya's Muslim population, which is particularly incendiary in the current international framework. He has clamped down on fragile media freedoms. He has continued to act imperiously against his immediate neighbors, which undercuts Russia's credibility with the rest of Europe. It is incumbent on the West to encourage Putin to alter his course, and the good news is there are concrete steps that can be taken.

Russia's desire to be accepted as a Western power gives Western countries some leverage: That acceptance, and the closer economic and political ties that would follow, must be made contingent on Russia's continuing commitment to democratic reforms. The West must give Russia some incentives by spelling out more precisely how the rest of Europe is prepared to integrate Russia with its Western neighbors. Will the West admit Russia into NATO, as the Germans have suggested? If not, what positive security role will Europe permit a democratic Russia to play?

The West must also continue to step back from Cold War policies that tip the debate in Russia against the Westernizers. For all the declarations in the West of the end of the Cold War, NATO forces still patrol the Russian coasts, as if waiting for an imminent war, and 95% of the U.S. nuclear arsenal — which is still maintained at Cold War levels — remains dedicated to the potential destruction of Russia. We, of course, claim these missiles are not targeting Russia, but the Russians know that they can be retargeted within minutes and that their only possible purpose would be to attack Russia. Proposed cuts in the numbers of nuclear weapons dedicated against Russia will not take place for a decade.

The unwillingness of the West to scale back its nuclear arsenal from Cold War levels only reinforces hard-line Russian elements that insist that NATO, which is now proposing to establish bases in Eastern Europe, has aggressive intentions toward Russia. The U.S. should offer to remove at least 50% of its thousands of nuclear warheads, provided Moscow takes a reciprocal step. Such an offer would leave enough missiles to destroy every major city in both countries, but it would also convey to the Russian military a direction in the relationship that would encourage the more democratic voices in Moscow.

Another area of collaboration with Russia should be working to provide greater security and a better economic future for the countries caught in the middle between an expanding EU and NATO on the one hand and a resurgent Russia on the other. At this point, it is by no means clear that Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus will ever be allowed to join the European Union.

Cut off from any sizable market, many of these states could sink into deeper poverty and become pockets of instability and crime. Yet the U.S. and other Western countries resist any effort by Russia to organize an appropriate economic space east of the EU, and they denounce Russian investments in these countries. The U.S. and EU countries could work with Russia to craft something like the Hoover-Roosevelt Good Neighbor Policy, under which the largest state in the region would begin to treat its neighbors as partners rather than as subjects.

To build and hold the democratic space that exists in Russia, Western leaders must constantly engage the Russian leadership while also offering support to those inside Russia who are struggling to build a civil society. Plans by the U.S. and Britain to curtail aid to these groups in the coming years should be reversed.

We should not hesitate to speak honestly, but we must speak fairly. Care must be taken to apply the same standards to Russia that we apply to close allies that do not always meet the highest standards. Otherwise, our criticism will be dismissed.

The West cannot allow the predictions of a "cold peace" or a new Cold War to become reality. Today neither Washington nor Moscow enjoys a surplus of friends in the world. Neither capital needs a new antagonist.

[Myrddin]

Russia's economic problems are more to do with how Yeltsin ruled the country than the advice that he was given by the West; the tipping point was Yeltsin's 1996 re-election and the backroom deals that were done surrounding it

Putin is popular because the Russian's tradionally want a strong leader, and he is clamping down on the 'robber barons'

I'm not sure that the Russians really care about the US nuclear arsenal, or want to seriously reduce their own, as this is their guarantee of great power status

Encouraging Russia to work more closely with other FSU states is just plain silly - it might work for Belarus, but it will be unpopular in other countries who feel they escaped from Russian domination just a few years back

Overall its not complete nonsense, but neither is it a full picture

[Ned]

Putin apparently has an 80% approval rating inside Russia. He must be doing something right.

As to these "democratic reforms" the LA Times wants. What are these? I don't have a clue what he is talking about.

I have expressed my views on this before, but I believe that France, Germany and Russia are already operating in a new anti-American alliance. We need to move Germany out of the military aspects of the alliance, not move Russia in.

[CerberusIV]

The last paragraph of that article is the key - and it is wrong. Washington does need a new antagonist, a new rival. Then the old patterns can be resumed - the political rhetoric, the justification for defence expenditure and so on. Add in the erosion of personal rights excused by the "war on terror" and the takeover is complete.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
However the way I understand it, it was Polish and Spanish concern about solely economic affairs, which brought them into the position of rejecting the constitution.

What happened in two words is this: Poland was given excessive compromises in the previous summit. France, Germany tried to renegotiate them towards more democratic representation but it failed. Bliar was pulling the strings all along for this to happen (don't worry, we'll support you, better to disagree than agree etc). However it is rumoured that the failure of the summit was a want of the EU states which will push for a 2-speed EU. France Germany and some others. Failure at the summit opened up this road.

Of course their demand for political influence was over the top. The population in those two countries does simply not warrant that kind of influence. Yet France has 30 million less citizens than Germany, and how come Germany does not complian about that?

It is all part of the compromise spirit. The one the UK lacks.

Now, as far as I understand, there is presently an understanding between Germany, Poland and Spain on bilateral terms. It is of course unfortunate that the unresolved issues were not solved within the EU institutions.

I think that within one year the constitution will be approved the issues with the votes resolved and the 2 speed EU will go ahead. They can have a bilateral agreement (though I never heard about this one) but they will have to go through the institutions to approve or not whatever the deal is.

Yet the way I understand EU co-operation, the German-Polish-Spanish deal will eventually be incorporated into the EU structure.

You caught be "not having done my homework" But yes whatever it is it has to go through the "fromal chanels"

I am absolutely convinced that any sane Brit will see the benefit of working with the Europeans, especially because the issues which are agreed upon have so far reaching consequences, and are not just erratic foreign policy adventures.

Hmmm I'm not so sure. Recent survey: how important is EU to you?

UK: 6% answreed important.

Average EU: around 70% answered important

In other words, as goes for 'hard' foreign policy Britain will follow the US, regarding 'soft' social and economic issues Britain will follow Europe. And that has something to do with basic facts of economics, and the way societies in general tend to evolve.

It can't go this way since it creates too many variable geometries. Too many special clauses that will hurt the EU sometimes in favor of the UK sometimes without any benefit for it either.