Russia: No CFE treaty for you!

[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]

snip snip

[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/commentary/la-op-maynes15feb15,1,5547868.story?coll=la-news-comment-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.