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.
In the long term - who knows, maybe you'll get a Russian Willy Brandt and a shift in Russian public relations policy towards constant reassurance and apology for the past. That would eventually work, but I don't see it happening for the foreseeable future. Or perhaps over time the EU will be able to take the place of NATO in the minds of the Poles and Baltics, along with the military structures that implies, though without the Russian shift taking place, that wouldn't really change anything from an EU-RUssia perspective, except perhaps for the worse. And remember that NATO was a vital factor enabling the reconciliation and reintegration of Germany in Western Europe. (NATO's triple purpose: Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.)
All in all, I don't quite get Europeans who are simultaneously pro EU integration, pro international stability, pro better EU-Russia relations, and anti-NATO. The last of these policy choices implies giving up on at least one of the first three.
This is a claim that requires elaboration. There is no clear way that support for NATO is pro-European integration or pro better EU-Russian relations, so it would seem to be that the claim hinges strongly on the notion that NATO is pro-international stability.
This is, of course, the military-industrial complex line ... that a base network of 700+ overseas bases accumulated in part as a result of fighting and winning WWII and then pursuing an encirclement strategy against the USSR, and accumulated in part just because it was possible to get a base in the country ... is somehow pro-international stability.
I think "international stability" here is a euphemism for Pax Americana, and if so it is one of those Orwellian terms that means its opposite, as Pax Americana seems to be one of the primary instigators of international conflict in the world at the moment. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
There is no clear way that support for NATO is pro-European integration or pro better EU-Russian relations
The issue of Ukraine's possible EU or NATO accession would be a good test bed for elucidating this question. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
the Central-Eastern European nations have strongly anti-Russian and consequently Atlanticist currents. Poland and the Baltics are the prime examples because they share a border with Russia.
My understanding is that this isn't representative of the reality on the ground. The self proclaimed 'elites' of the political circles are anti-Russian (I wonder what the financial arrangements are) while Eastern European society at large is hardly anti Russian.
Statistics on this are welcome.
Or perhaps over time the EU will be able to take the place of NATO in the minds of the Poles and Baltics, along with the military structures that implies, though without the Russian shift taking place, that wouldn't really change anything from an EU-RUssia perspective, except perhaps for the worse.
Are you saying the Poles and Baltics whose minds we're talking about are the "self-proclaimed 'elites'"? Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
The key to mind control is information control.
The Socialists are opposed as is the center MODEM led by François BAYROU. Are these 'serious' political parties? BAYROU is calling on the government to organise a referendum on the issue. I would certainly support that. But if it's not on the agenda, it's because the French would vote NO. Vive la démocracie.
Many of these Russian 'immigrants' are highly educated - something that Finnish companies and institutions have been slow to react to. You can't be me, I'm taken
A total, by my count, of 158 bases - a figure Wikipedia acknowledges to be incomplete. Obviously this does not nominally local bases where some US troops may be based from time to time, temporary bases, black sites, and bases manned by close allies or Corporate contractors.
Do you know what the 700 figure is based on? notes from no w here
Secret Bases Part 1 - WWW.SECRET-BASES.CO.UK - © 2009
RAF Croughton near Brackley in Northamptonshire is an old USAF airbase, but no runways have been apparent for many years. The base appears as a significant cluster of aerial symbols. That's because RAF Croughton is the focal point for the US military's communications within Europe..... Croughton has a transmitter annexe at RAF Barford St. John near Banbury in Oxfordshire. This "disused airfield" is said to provide secure communications facilities for CIA agents and US Diplomatic personnel. The 1:25000 OS map reveals another good old "Wireless Station" label.
Croughton has a transmitter annexe at RAF Barford St. John near Banbury in Oxfordshire. This "disused airfield" is said to provide secure communications facilities for CIA agents and US Diplomatic personnel. The 1:25000 OS map reveals another good old "Wireless Station" label.
"+" because the Base Structure Report is clearly incomplete, in terms of not listing any bases for countries where we know that US forces are based, and also in terms of only listing a central base in locations with multiple bases ... for example, in the 2003 report, Okinawa has one Marine Corps base listed, where there are as many as 10 Marine Corps bases on the island. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
100 countries sounds reasonable to me ... there has never been a foreign base closure commission like the US base closure commission a while back, and the MIC is a pack-rat when it comes to overseas bases ... for one thing, remember that Kitchen Patrol and Toilet Duty are now largely relegated to contractors, which means that most bases are a supply of ongoing contracts for base support operations. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Pro-European integration - being viewed as acting against countries' most important strategic interests would do bad things for European integration. On the latter point, I'm not saying it helps, but rather that trying to eliminate it would hurt.
... but even more importantly, actively working to eliminate it and actively working to reinforce it is a false dichotomy. There are actions short of actively working to eliminate it that would accelerate the decline resulting from its obsolescence ... for instance, removing participation in actions outside of NATO borders from the NATO structure would be a big step in the right direction. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Here's a factoid I've borne in mind a lot these last few years: when the 20th century opened, civilian casualties accounted for about 10% of all casualties in conflict. By the century's close that ratio had reversed - about 90% of all casualties of conflict are civilian casualties. Likely it's military technologies and the assymetric tactical doctrine account for much of this, other reasons might be deliberate civilian targeting (genocide, ethnic cleasning) and what I'll call disorganized military formations that forage off, recruit from, and pass disease among the noncombattants they live among.
Conflict is one of the reasons foreign affiars in general has gotten its hooks into me. "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
Here's a factoid I've borne in mind a lot these last few years: when the 20th century opened, civilian casualties accounted for about 10% of all casualties in conflict. By the century's close that ratio had reversed - about 90% of all casualties of conflict are civilian casualties.
I doubt this factoid is true if you do not (as they did at the time) constrain the definition of war to the conflicts between european powers. When dealing with people without machineguns (Congo, Tasmania and the list goes on) attempted genocide was common. WW2 saw these practices spread to europe, hence the horror. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Damn, I thought I had that one down, and now I'll have to go back and check it.
Grrrrrrrrrr! "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
This is a current author. He'd have to be to be speaking to what happened at the end of the 20th century, wouldn't he? "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
It is a fairly common mistake, similar to using start of 20th century definitions of democracy. My guess would be that the author is primarily concerned with the atrocities of the 20th century and uses the earlier episode as backdrop for contrast. Am I right? Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Pointing out that Pax Americana means no wars America did not start except in trivial countries which are mostly important as sources of raw materials ... does not contradict the absence of Great Power Armed Conflict, it just underlines the limitations of Great Power Armed Conflict as a framing for violence against people around the world. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Russian public relations policy towards constant reassurance and apology for the past.
This kind of comment is likely to draw us into a debate about the relative evil inflicted by empires from East to West. Do you really want to go there?
It seems that there is a strong thread of "Run, run, the Russkies are coming!" in the border states and that judgement is unaffected by the belief that the Russians have better things to do and bigger problems to deal with than invading Poland.
The Germans are not only coming... in fact, they're already back (albeit in a somewhat different outfit) to many of the places they left back in 1945.
Is anyone advocating that the Germans - Austrians repeatedly communicate regret and apology to these nations... Is that because the 'people' of central Europe have no fear or is it because the local media and governing 'elites' are supportive of renewed German economic and political influence in their countries?
Very roughly, if you're 30 years old you remember "shock therapy". If you're 60 years old you remember the Soviet satellite regimes. You have to be 90 years old to remember the Nazis. Of course, the Polish Twins were happy to annoy both Germany and Russia, and in the Czech Republic apart from a President whose only political message is "<insert thing Klaus dislikes> is like Communism" they have an ongoing controversy over the Beneš decrees which are perceived to be a symbolic bulwark against the German "return" you talk about.
In addition, Germany did engage in a fair amount of soul-searching in the 1960's. Perestroika might have led to Russia doing the same about now, except that the result of Perestroika was that the USSR imploded instead, followed by "shock therapy" and a nationalistic backlash.
So while I think the Russian bogeyman is ridiculous, I can understand where the sentiment comes from and how sociologically Marek may well be totally correct that a more cooperative relationship between the enlarged EU and Russia "simply isn't going to happen" "in the short term". Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
The reason the EU can't replace the NATO is exactly the point that people in eastern Europe fear a dominance of Germany, if the biggest ally in their military alliance would be Germany. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
I doubt anyone in Poland seriously considers partition a possibility. But a certain lack of consistency from the Allies during WWII might still rankle among those old enough to remember the aftermath.
Not that the UK and US were ever likely to declare war on Russia immediately after. It was considered as an option, but rejected for obvious reasons.
But there's a case to be made for mismanagement of the invasion in 1944, which added another 6-12 months to the war and allowed the Soviet incursion into Europe to push far to the West of where it might have reached otherwise.
And the Poles by the Soviet one.
Is anyone advocating that the Germans - Austrians repeatedly communicate regret and apology to these nations
The Germans do, and have been doing so for a good several decades now. And guess what, it's worked.
Financing Ukrainian extremist nationalists? Anyone?
But at least they're repentant. I am much relieved.
I mean, we can play at this game for a long time; would not then the US also have a whole hell of a lot to apologize for? Or the UK? Or any other number of countries?
The list will be long, and include many current offenders. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
Plus, the Germans already apologised in the 1960's. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
I don't think one could imagine such an experience would be forgotten by the early revolutionaries, certainly not Stalin, and what followed should be seen in this light, also, I think. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
The goal here would be for Germany and Russia to work with their "buffer states" to get to a point where they can all live side by side. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
role of the USSR in the defeat of Nazism has almost been written out of popular "Western" history
Of course. It had to be. Because the strategy on the Atlantic side of the Alliance was precisely to let the Soviet Union to do as much of the fighting as possible, and only come in swinging at the end.
That is not the sort of thing you can include in patriotic history texts.
very real and justifiable Russian fear of invasion by the West after WW2
Really? The very real, but always-overruled proposal in policy circles was to fake a provocation and follow with nuclear attack, while the US enjoyed its nuclear monopoly. This policy proposal lost ground as monopoly was reduced to mere superiority.
Or is that what you were refering to? The Fates are kind.
George S. Patton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After the surrender of May 8, 1945 eliminated the threat of Nazi Germany, Patton was quick to assert the Soviet Union would cease to be an ally of the United States. He was concerned that some 25,000 American POWs had been liberated from POW camps by the Soviets, but were never returned to the US. In fact, he urged his superiors to evict the Soviets from central and eastern Europe. Patton thought that the Red Army was weak, under-supplied, and vulnerable, and the United States should act on these weaknesses before the Soviets could consolidate their position. In this regard, he told then-Undersecretary of War Robert P. Patterson that the "point system" being used to demobilize Third Army troops was destroying it and creating a vacuum that the Soviets would exploit. "Mr. Secretary, for God's sake, when you go home, stop this point system; stop breaking up these armies," pleaded the general. "Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people, the Soviets. This is the only language they understand." Asked by Patterson -- who would become Secretary of War a few months later -- what he would do, Patton replied: "I would have you tell the Red Army where their border is, and give them a limited time to get back across. Warn them that if they fail to do so, we will push them back across it."
Or as I heard it summarised elsewhere "Now, lets continue to Moscow!" Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
But it seems to me that, when the civil war was raging, all the while the Germans had the Russians by the balls (and Lenin recognised this, see Luxemburg on the subject), a few of those Polish battalions who'd been fighting alongside the Tsar's Russian troops prior to the revolution, went over to the other side of the civil war.
Maybe this is just a legend, but I don't think it is. In any event, the people (well, person really) who ran the Soviet Union after things settled out of that civil war had a long memory in addition to being a homicidal paranoid maniac.
Long story short, unless the popular will of the people say otherwise, talking spit about history and assigning blame is the province of the various elite who have too much time on their hands, like me today...
The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
But that's what we're talking about. What could be done to reassure Polish public opinion. Now, it is true that the elites are even more Atlanticist than the population, in the sense that among the former only the extreme right is opposed (and in recent years even they have been somewhat muzzled by their alliance with the twins), still, there is a deep paranoia about Russia, and a resulting support for alliance with the US among the population as well. This really isn't that hard to understand. Two centuries of colonial rule, occasionally a very brutal one, leave their mark.
But it seems to me that, when the civil war was raging, all the while the Germans had the Russians by the balls (and Lenin recognised this, see Luxemburg on the subject), a few of those Polish battalions who'd been fighting alongside the Tsar's Russian troops prior to the revolution, went over to the other side of the civil war. Maybe this is just a legend, but I don't think it is. In any event, the people (well, person really) who ran the Soviet Union after things settled out of that civil war had a long memory in addition to being a homicidal paranoid maniac.
Looks like it could be / should be at least truish. During world war one Germany set up a puppet state, Kingdom of Poland. When tsarist russia collapsed, the polish troops probably did not feel themselves obliged to serve a new russian government and might have either fought under a white general or joined (or attempted to join) the puppet state. It would at least fit the general pattern in that war zone at the time.
While checking around to see if there was a polish equivalent of the Czech Legion I found this sobering quote:
A total of 2 million Polish troops fought with the armies of the three occupying powers, and 450,000 died. Several hundred thousand Polish civilians were moved to labour camps in Germany. The scorched-earth retreat strategies of both sides left much of the war zone uninhabitable.
by gmoke - Jun 22
by gmoke - Jun 19
by gmoke - Jun 6
by Oui - Jun 22
by Oui - Jun 2216 comments
by Oui - Jun 21
by Oui - Jun 208 comments
by Oui - Jun 209 comments
by Oui - Jun 19
by Oui - Jun 192 comments
by Oui - Jun 187 comments
by Oui - Jun 181 comment
by Oui - Jun 1710 comments
by Oui - Jun 166 comments
by Oui - Jun 16
by Oui - Jun 162 comments
by Oui - Jun 1515 comments
by Oui - Jun 141 comment
by Oui - Jun 14