The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The reason many European still like the EU is that it isn't very effective or efficient as a superpower - it can't really play the superpower game - and they don't want it to be able to - in much the same way as Switzerland isn't an actual player on the world stage in the military sense, but still quite influential all the same.
Most Europeans don't want to compete with the US, or with Russia, in military terms. Neither do we want to get caught between them. Hence the utter stupidity of Georgia's actions. It's time I got out of this game....
Is Germany considered broken into pieces because the Laender have some independence? Even France has regional level structures, it is not just a hundred different departments, wouldn't you say?
You have an excellent point about the issue of superpower status. That's something the people of Europe as a whole need to sort out. I myself (as a frenchman) am not sure what direction I'd like to see, but I do believe that the world is not going to wait until organizational issues can be settled. And unfortunately the old Roman dictum si vis pacem, para bellum appears to still be valid. Europe does not have the kind of natural geographical protections that Switzerland enjoys. -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
It's a piece of LaTeX which represents the defining property of a martingale.
The simplest example of a martingale in this sense is a double or nothing gambling strategy in certain games of chance(*), but a better way of understanding them is that they are purely random processes, which cannot be predicted based on historical observations: if you try to predict their future, your best guess is to duplicate the present, regardless of what you've seen in the past.
(*)wherein one proves that double or nothing fails to help one win: when the strategy has no statistical trend, then there is no advantage from using it. -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
As I was not staying in academia, I did not really care and did not fight this. Thus the dissertation was never published anywhere and was quickly forgotten.
I had done an executive summary in English but can no longer find the file; I'd need to draft it again; it's probably worth it... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Sinon, tu peux aussi m'envoyer le fichier par email, l'addresse que j'ai indiquee sur ET lors de l'enregistrement est bidon, mais fonctionne. -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
Hence the utter stupidity of Georgia's actions.
Saakashvili is a tool in several of the common senses and, it would appear, a very naive one at that. He does have GWB standing behind him, way behind him, all the way back in Crawford, on vacation. But the problem was that he had a very different agenda than the older members of the EU. He thought that he could parlay his US backing, purchased in part with $800,000 from the Georgian treasury to his US lobyist, into neo-cold war glory by reasserting control over South Ossetia.
He failed to appreciate that the $800,000 only purchased the ringing endorsements, not any effective military assistance come the crunch. His goal was not irrational, but his means were rash and he walked right in to a trap set by Putin. What the EU needs is to realize that they have to more forcefully repudiate putative future members of the EU and NATO which Washington would like to arrange for them.
The EU might be spending about as much, per capita, as the USA on military forces, but, as suggested by others above, it is not getting similar bang for the buck. The existing arrangement can only really be directed by the US. The US abuses this arrangement to suit the needs of domestic politics, as with Georgia. The US is very unlikely to abandon that ability voluntarily. The arrangement has the potential to become an attractive nuisance, like an unfenced swimming pool, but one that can start WWIII, just so that one US political party can gain an electoral advantage. If this nuisance is ever to be adequately fenced, it must be done by Europeans. Doing so would be a service to the entire world.
The only one to come out of this with any advantage is Putin and possibly McCain. Should this ploy work for McCain it could be much more difficult for the EU to ever get control of its own foreign agenda. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
But what is the use of higher military spending? Alone France and Germany for sure are spending a similar amount of money as Russia. There is just no way how Russia could win a conventional war against the EU, even if the US would stay out completely. Even during the cold war, most likely the Warsaw pact would have lost a conventional war in Europe. Now the Baltics, Poland, eastern Germany,.... have joined the west. If at all our defending capabilities against an conventional land strike are unecessary big, not too small. Furthermore it is possible, that Russia is especially suspicious of NATO enlargement, because NATO is already so strong. One can reasonably ask, as a non-NATO member, what are these guys preparing for with all their weaponry? Who is spending so much money he could spend for other things on defense, if he doesn't want to do provocative things? Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
The logic is - the stupider the US Government - riven by internal dissension, driven by narrow special interests etc. - the more other powers - and even the EU will gain by comparison - especially if they are effectively led in terms of their own national interest - as Russia, China, India etc. seem to be now.
My major concern with that scenario is that:
The last couple of election cycles in the US really haven't been anything special in US history. Vote stealing, gerrymandering, a jingoistic press and an electorate - or parts of same - with the cognitive skills of dead sheep have been standard issue in US politics since the end of the Civil War.
What changed - partly as a result of wishful thinking - was the realisation that better choices were possible. The earlier labour movements were powerful but reactive. The DFHs were proactive but not nearly as powerful. Even so - there was an understanding that a better reality was possible.
That's still around, but it's been marginalised as an extremist view in the US.
Given what's likely to happen next, I wouldn't be surprised if there were parts of the US where it's about to become mainstream again.
...the most advanced democracy in the world.
How can this phrase be made to drip with sufficient irony, sarcasm and venom to convey the pathetic standard which it describes? "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
What?? Why're you looking at me like that? It does sound like an empty slogan, and I've just been travelling for seven hours straight...
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 22 2 comments
by Oui - Mar 16 16 comments
by Oui - Mar 15 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 9 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 14 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2 3 comments
by Oui - Mar 271 comment
by Oui - Mar 2710 comments
by Oui - Mar 22
by Oui - Mar 2211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 222 comments
by Oui - Mar 1944 comments
by Oui - Mar 1739 comments
by gmoke - Mar 17
by Oui - Mar 1616 comments
by Oui - Mar 1537 comments
by Oui - Mar 155 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 1414 comments
by Oui - Mar 134 comments
by Oui - Mar 128 comments
by Oui - Mar 1112 comments
by Oui - Mar 1058 comments
by Oui - Mar 1015 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 93 comments
by Oui - Mar 99 comments