Invite Russia to join the EU! "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
It would change the whole dimension of the EU project, as the biggest part of the EU would then be in Asia. This would change the European project into an Eurasian project, with a different scope.
Also, Russia would have to accept to abandon part of its sovereignty, which I don't think it is ready to do.
Anyway, Russia would first have to meet the Copenhagen criteria, which is unlikely to happen soon...
However I am all for a very strong cooperation treaty between the EU and Russia to favour the progressive opening of our countries to each other and the development of cultural and economic exchanges.
"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
Both sides have a lot to gain from this. Russia doesn't want to be isolated again as it was during the Cold War, and Western Europe needs Russia Oil and gas. A mutual determination not to be divided and conquered would suit both parties.
We can't let the neo-cons (or the Russian hardliners?) win this one. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Your suggestion of a friendship and cooperation treaty between the EU and Russia is probably the best option
That's what I proposed in my half-drunk speech in Nizhny-Novgorod... "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
More formal trade links and - perhaps more usefully - sharing of technology and innovation could have more of an influence.
What makes Russia strong at the moment is that it has already fallen apart - and it didn't. The vassal states split off, but there was no internal East/West split. So today's Russia has a strong and coherent political identity which would swamp that of the EU.
Russia will calm down, at least for a generation or so, if the US stops being aggressive and confrontational. The problem isn't on this side of the Atlantic and can't be solved here.
How about if only the European part of Russia joins? That would include most of the Russian people and economic activity. The Asian part could be kept on as a Russian satellite country, or maybe a province, perhaps called "Siberia."
How about if only the European part of Russia joins?
Surprisingly, that's what some of the high-level Russians I met in Nizhny-Novgorod were claiming. They were sounding very contemptuous towards the "Asians" (including those belonging the the Russian Federation), saying "for centuries, we have protected Europe from these barbarians"...
IMHO, it not at all desirable and, anyway, it wouldn't be possible: I don't see how the secession could take place. And the European Union as it is doesn't foresee the possibility of such a thing as a "satellite state" (with what statute?). In fact, in case a secession would happen, your "Siberia" would most probably become a satellite of China... "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
Greenland, anyone? A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
And at any rate, Greenland is an integral part of Denmark in a constitutional sense. It's a Danish municipality that has been granted quasi-independence through various and sundry lex Greenlands.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Either way, by the time we get around to Russian entry we'll be in 2040, or something. It's all very hypothetical.
The people who would be happy to live within 17th century borders - mostly no Asia - are "professional Russkie", or fundamentalist, nationalist, and cave Orthodox types. I doubt very much EU would be happy with this country as a member.
Also, they were drunk.
...
And don't even get me started on the "Moscow is not really Russia" and "Where is the true soul of Russia located?" debates. uhg. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
MHO, it not at all desirable and, anyway, it wouldn't be possible: I don't see how the secession could take place. And the European Union as it is doesn't foresee the possibility of such a thing as a "satellite state" (with what statute?). In fact, in case a secession would happen, your "Siberia" would most probably become a satellite of China...
Oh, oh, oh. I have to tell this story.
I work as a teaching assistant at a state university.
Last year I was in the class that I was a TA for and the professor goes off on a tangent about how sections of the Russian military are worried about Asiatic hordes invading Siberia.
So a hand goes up on the left side of the room. Blonde girl looking a bit confused.......
So she asks the professor, "Dr. ***, why is the Russian military so concerned about Chinese prostitutes?"
This was a running joke between us for the next month.... And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
you sexism is not funny, even if sexists are easily amused creating their own reality. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
If I told the same story, and replaced "blond girl" with "guy in a football jersey" would that be sexist as well? And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Define for yourself, boy, guy, man.... Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
I agree with you, NATO is presently divided between "Old Europe" with a subtle Turkey and the fledging ex-Warsawites backed by a distant America. But the possibility of NATO falling apart in the near future appears highly improbable to me. It would be better to fall back on its original partners' experience and accept that Russia has drawn a line in the dirt.
America under Bush has over-extended itself. The NATO did not rush into the Iraq debacle. It was the "Coalition of the Willing," a muddle of satrapies along for the ride hoping to cash in on the way out. Like Georgia.
No matter who really started this conflict, the reactions in Europe and especially Central Europe are crystal clear: close the ranks, the Russians are back. Except this time the line isn't drawn along the Oder but rather the Dnepr (which is a Bad Thing as said river goes straight through a rather divided nation).
This has been quite a clarion call to those who think that having the US as a pal is just as good as being a NATO member, and it has also beaten the idea that the EU will lift a finger to help anyone into the ground. This will reignite the NATO debate in Finland and Sweden. It might well lead to the rearmament of Sweden.
It will give NATO a raison d'etre once again, no matter how much certain people have been gloating over the weakening of the Alliance.
The winner of this conflict is not Russia which has gotten its image completely destroyed in return for some worthless parcels of land, it's not Georgia which has had its soldiers killed and its government humiliated, and it's certainly not the USA which has been shown in all its current feebleness and insane choice of allies.
The winner is spelled with four letters.
N. A. T. O. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Slightly off topic. Apart from the somewhat questionable advantage of being able to buy nice looking fighter planes to impress all and sundry with why would any country want the dubious honor of supplying auxilliary troops to support the legions of empire America not to mention allowing us to occupy your country with our troops who remain pretty much above local laws?
NATO was set up to stop the Soviet Union from enslaving the remaining free half of Europe. Or rather to "keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down." Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If you look at Iraq which is indeed under occupation there are troops there from NATO nations, like the UK, the US and Poland (at least there used to be Poles, I'm not sure if they're still there). But there are also major NATO nations, like Germany who haven't deployed troops there while there are troops there from non-NATO nations. Remember the third(!) largest contingent was from the non-NATO nation of Georgia.
So it's really hard to find a correlation between NATO membership and deployment of troops in foreign nations. NATO nations and non-NATO nations alike do it. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
