European Tribune

Display:
entitled "what should (and what can) we do about Russia?"

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 06:01:56 AM EST
As opposed to "what will we do?", which is different again.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 06:09:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Looking forward to reading it. Meanwhile, the entire Canadian Press Corps (which is essentially two companies plus the Toronto Star plus the CBC) seems to be as one with the Wall Street J: Brave Little Georgia. Bad Wicked Russia, too bad it has all that oil and gas.
by PIGL on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 06:12:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Invite Russia to join NATO.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 06:36:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In a distant future Russia could collaborate with NATO but not in its present situation. It would prefer to negotiate from a position of force as a strong partner rather than a federation of over 260 entities under constant pressure from NATO along its borders.

The present show of force is just one of the instruments Russia has to tell America that laying their bets on small middle-European states as some sort of Rumsfeldian "New Europe" is a a major strategic error.

Russia will continue to foster unrest in border states.

Europe's power is still France, Germany, Spain, Italy- the "old Europe." Russia talks with them and has the best relations in decades with them. These states by and large have the clout and the sovereignty to deal as partners with Russia- and they are not about to kneel to the USA's empirial wishes. If the US wants to bank on its new protectorates along Russia's borders rather than listen to European nations, they'll end up out in the cold.

I am in no way endorsing Russia's present strategy no more than the Chechyen wars. It's a question of looking at matters from a geopolitical view. It's a question of Realpolitik. Russia intends to reassert its position on the international stage. And one cannot dismiss the fact that it may actually please some of the "old" European states.

At this point of the crisis the biggest losers are a foolish and reckless Georgia and the Ukraine. As for the Baltic states, Poland and the Czech Republic, they would be better off building good relations with the Russian Federation rather than counting on a distant America who may well be unwilling to go all the way is a clinch. Russia is a very big and hard reality. But depicting it as an enemy once again is foolhardy.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 07:27:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
First, good analysis. I don't see why Russia would necessarily continue to foment unrest along its border, however. There's a trade-off involved in that it is risky for Russia, too, to fuel seperatist passions.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 08:05:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are four wannabe "states" who have coalisced as of 1994 in a mutual defense organization under the auspices of the Russian Minister of the Interior: Transnistria, South Ossetsia, Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh. All of these enclaves represent a political and military problem for their "hosts"- Moldavia, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaigian. (Sorry about the English spelling transcriptions.)

Their existence and active support by Russia will continue to complicate the scenario for the next few years. Their destiny will certainly be part of a trade-off- but that may not come about in our lifetimes.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 11:52:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Until Aug 8, 2008, the most likely scenario for Transnistria was coming back to Moldova in exchange for Moldova NEVER entering NATO - and, therefore, the EU. This might have changed now, but Russia has worked very hard on resolving this one and hammering on the compromise I described. And Nagorno-Karabakh is an entirely separate issue, it's a very democratic country which actually doesn't want to be associated with Russia. The issue is, really, just SO and Abkhasia.
by Sargon on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 02:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What has Nato membership got to do with EU membership? One is not a precondition for the other.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 02:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Moldova NEVER entering NATO - and, therefore, the EU.

As far as I know, NATO membership is not a precondition for EU accession. Given the fact that a great number of Moldovan citizens detain a Romanian passport (and many more asked for one), it will be hard to prevent Moldova to join the Union.

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 02:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was talking about the existing reality. NATO is and would be a pre-condition for EU until and unless the "old Europe" gets its act together and shakes off too intimate US embrace. Don't see this happening before my Altsheimer strikes and I fade into bliss of being uninformed and not caring any longer.
by Sargon on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 02:54:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just like Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finland and Malta?
Left Cyprus out because the British still have a base there?
by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 03:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm talking about the former Soviet block. Empirically, for it the NATO membership was a necessary condition for the EU entry. Whatever you can say about Finland, it wasn't in the Soviet block.

Of course, former Soviet block countries usually wanted to be in NATO to get protection against the Russian threat they perceived. Still, we really don't have a case of a former Soviet block country willing to get into the EU but not NATO and getting its wish granted.

by Sargon on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 05:28:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I suspect that NATO membership was the price for US support for EU membership ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 05:33:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do we have a case of a former Soviet bloc country wanting to get into the EU but not NATO?

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 05:34:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've certainly seen it reported that the general understanding was that NATO was first and the EU second, but I've never worked out why that was.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 05:43:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because security always comes first. Something NATO but not the EU delivers.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 07:57:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Ukraine, popular support for EU membership is much stronger than for NATO - or at least used to be. Ukrainian mass-media was almost indistinguishable from CNN/BBC during the Ossetian crisis, who knows how that will play out.
by Sargon on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 06:30:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Invite Russia to join the EU and stop this attempt to re-start the Cold War in its tracks. Europe has to stop playing this by US rules and start playing by its own.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 07:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Putin does not have an interest in the EU as is. It has no sovereignty. Far better to have bilateral relations with each European state.
by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 07:29:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bad idea. The EU can't get its political act together already right now, with fairly weak new members. Adding a strong Russia to the lot would bring the death knell to the union.



--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 07:34:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From the Not The Onion Department.  McCain in the WSJ this morning:

[I]n the 21st Century nations don't invade other nations.

Powerful stupid.  Just kill me, please.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 08:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You obviously don't understand. There's a huge difference between the U.S. liberating Iraq and Russia invading Georgia. Two completely different situations, that can be extrapolated:

U.S. liberates Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan: Good.
Russia invades Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania: Bad.

by asdf on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 09:12:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The major difference I can see is that one invasion bankrupted the invader financially, while the other will not.

I told Bush; don't play chess with the freakin' Russians.
by LEP (rafifoon@yahoo.com) on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 at 12:32:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The cover of the latest Private Eye has a photo of Bush and Rice under the headline "U.S. CONDEMNS RUSSIA":

Rice: How dare the Russians invade a sovereign state...

Bush: That's what we do.

by Gag Halfrunt on Wed Aug 20th, 2008 at 07:02:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Recent Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series