United States of Europe vs. Stalinland: Ukraine, pt. II

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor

You also seem to be confusing the NATO organization with the Atlantic Alliance. The former is the military organization, the latter is the pledge to mutual self defence. IIUC, France NEVER withdrew from the latter, even when it was outside NATO.

I am aware of the distinction between the two, but I don't see where I confused them in this thread. I also don't see why the distinction would be relevant in this thread: we are discussing about collective defense, not about the specifics of the military organization of the allies.


This -

"The EU by itself is a defensive alliance. The treaties clearly state that, should a Member-State be under attack, all other member States should aid it with all means available.

NATO goes further in military matters, as there is an integration of the military command. But in all other matters (economic and political integration), the EU is lightyears beyond NATO, and for a good reason: NATO is a military alliance, and nothing more than that. The EU is an economic and political union"

It seemed from the above that you distinguished the NATO commitment from the EU commitment, by NATO having a military organization. But the Atlantic Alliance is NOT a military organization. Therefore it seems you imply the military commitment of the EU is the SAME as that of the Atlantic Alliance, ie an attack upon one is an attack upon all. Whereas it seems instead that "I suppose this wording was chosen in the constitution, in order to be vague enough so that the Neutral countries can decide only to choose civilian aid rather than military aid."

Thats the key point. No one can construe the Atlantic Alliance as anything other than a military commitment. Whereas the non-NATO members of the EU, ie Finland, Austria, Sweden, Ireland can and WILL interpret the EU constitution to mean rendering civilian and diplomatic support only. The NATO members already have an obligation to provide each other military aid. So the only additional obligation involved in the EU treaty will be the obligation, not reciprocated, that states like France and Germany adopt to go the aid of non-NATO states like Finland and Austria.

So, to get back on topic, IF Ukraine joins the EU, Ukraine will likely see itself as having no military obligations towards the other EU members. France and Germany MAY interpret the EU Const such that THEY have an obligation to render military aid to the Ukraine in the event of an attack on the Ukraine.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Which means it's about as precise as the "grave consequences" for Iraq if it didn't comply to resolution 1441.

The Neutral countries would probably give only civilian aid to an attacked EU member, while all other countries would scream, saying the Neutrals don't aid with "all means in their power".

This imprecise wording is what you make out of it. We can only hope that this article will never have to be implemented.

The point is Spif, if youre in Kiev, the Atlantic Alliance provides a rather clearer guarantee than the EU does. AFAICT the EU clause is there to aid in the further political development and foreign policy integration of the EU, not to provide NATO style collective defense. Which again, means that if you are a country that WANTS NATO style collective defense, youve got to join NATO.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Thats the key point. No one can construe the Atlantic Alliance as anything other than a military commitment. Whereas the non-NATO members of the EU, ie Finland, Austria, Sweden, Ireland can and WILL interpret the EU constitution to mean rendering civilian and diplomatic support only. The NATO members already have an obligation to provide each other military aid. So the only additional obligation involved in the EU treaty will be the obligation, not reciprocated, that states like France and Germany adopt to go the aid of non-NATO states like Finland and Austria.

So, to get back on topic, IF Ukraine joins the EU, Ukraine will likely see itself as having no military obligations towards the other EU members. France and Germany MAY interpret the EU Const such that THEY have an obligation to render military aid to the Ukraine in the event of an attack on the Ukraine.

I understand now what you mean. This is true, and it is likely to happen, unless the Consitution changes before any attack happens on the EU soil.

[Last Conformist]

lotm wrote:
Whereas the non-NATO members of the EU, ie Finland, Austria, Sweden, Ireland can and WILL interpret the EU constitution to mean rendering civilian and diplomatic support only.

I'd decapitalize that 'will'. A ministry of defense official told me he "could not imagine" that Sweden would remain neutral in the case of an attack on a fellow EU country.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

lotm wrote:
Whereas the non-NATO members of the EU, ie Finland, Austria, Sweden, Ireland can and WILL interpret the EU constitution to mean rendering civilian and diplomatic support only.

I'd decapitalize that 'will'. A ministry of defense official told me he "could not imagine" that Sweden would remain neutral in the case of an attack on a fellow EU country.

Does Sweden consider itself at war with Al Qaeda, after the Madrid attack? Did Sweden consider itself at war with AQ after the 9/11 attack on the United States? What im getting at is that I wonder if the same "could not imagine" applies to the US and Canada as well - yet Sweden is not in NATO. OTOH perhaps a conventional attack by a state would be considered differently, since some hold that its not legally meaningful to be "at war" with a non-state actor - in which case its not clear what it means to be neutral.

[GePap]

Well, once this is over, my plans to visit Yalta in Brezhneville can get back on track.

[Combat Ingrid]

I don't think we will send any troops if another EU state is attacked. A few years from now, there won't be any Swedish troops left to send, save for a conscript mech inf. army. But that one will be too busy parading around in Sarajevo, with a smiling combat dressed Göran Persson* in the front...

*Our beloved prime minister. He is the most exalted and wise.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS
Russia has only itself to rely upon, to blame, and to worry about. Western impact on Russian internal politics is quite minimal.

Listen to yourself talk, Vagabond. Russia's lack of democracy has nothing at all to do with the West's long standing thirst.

So you want to say that the external situation has alomost no impact on internal politics?? Quite a strange statement. Especially from an American, who must know how the external terrorist threat changed certain internal practices. Some critics even cry "democracy in danger". And this is America at a peak of its power. Then what about such country as Russia, in harsh transition and at a peak of its vulnerability?

I appreciate your modesty in this matter. But the harsh geopolitical challenge posed by the West inevitably affects Russian internal politics. In particular, it just reinforces the overall mobilizational trend. E.g. in economy. This harms the 'normal' economy. In politics, the pro-western liberal parties did not even get into the Duma. It is partly due to the policies of their western idols that the people turned away from them. Their absence in the Duma leads in turn to other consequences in Russian politics, etc., etc.

Why do you Russia supports Lukashenko in Belarus? Because we like him or his regime? The answer is quite simple: either Lukashenko, or Belarus in NATO.

So if you think that the feeling of a besieged fortress does not affect internal politics, you are quite mistaken.

I envy Poland. After the fall of communism, it has been developing in what can be called 'hothouse conditions'. As for Russia... well, you know.

Colon will vouch for me when I say that I was willing to give Putin the benefit of the doubt on this. I agree that past wrongs have to be fixed, at least somewhat. Russia was robbed blind by her oligarchs. At a minimum, proper taxes have to be collected. In the absence of other totalitarian tendencies, I would support a rebalancing of some of the oligarchs' power to the people.

But add the reality together and you get a totalitarian stench that scares Westerners.

Add also how it is all blown out of proportion by the 'free' western media.

Rather weak opposition parties being crushed.

Crushed?? The people simply didn't vote for them (see above). These parties are alive and well by the way, except that they are not represented in the Duma.

A strictly controlled TV press.

As I already had an occasion to say in this thread, the printed press is still free. There are free radio stations. TV became more controlled indeed. But, you would hate to hear this (and it seems that this offended Sikander), it has basically been reduced from a total permissiveness of the Yeltsin era to an American-style self-restraint.

Consolidation of power in the Czar's hands.

This isn't necessarily bad. Different countries require different approaches, in accordance with national traditions and mentality. Personally, I don't approve all of his policies though.

A resurgent secret police.

You are making me afraid. Secret services are needed for a proper functioning of the state. They were almost crushed under Yeltsin.

Rampant corruption in the top ranks of government.

This is not a recent phenomenon. But, as you, I am disappointed how Putin fights it. He seems to be too soft and indecisive.

Talk of a "controlled Democracy" (that must be a Russian creation ).

If you think that American democracy is not controlled, you are mistaken: There are two established gangs (sorry, parties) of the elite, and no third force is really allowed. This is precisely a variant of a controled democracy.

I wonder when the number of allowable presidential terms will be extended...

Putin recently once again pledged that he would go in 2008, in accordance with the constitution. I am inclined to believe him.

At best, all of this stuff is a waste of valuable time for Russia. Russia gains nothing from these measures.

Well, there may be different opinions on the matter.

Even if I were to accept your conspiracy theory, the way for Russia to "fight back" would be to become strong internally.

Becoming strong internally is what Putin is trying to accomplish. But in his own way, not yours.

If Russia were strong internally, then Putin wouldn't have to rig elections in the Ukraine.

So now not only the election in Ukraine was rigged, but it was rigged by Putin himself!

Indeed, as I pointed out above, most of what is happening under Putin will not make Russia stronger, but rather weaker. He should be raising wages, downsizing, and professionalizing the security services. Instead, he is monkeying around with centralization. I thought Putin was smarter than this. Collecting power is a fool's game.

Well, he has his own opinion of what will make Russia stronger, which does not coincide with yours and partly with mine. But this cannot justify the despicable campaign of Russia's vilification under way in the West for a long time (more precisely, forever).

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
I don't think we will send any troops if another EU state is attacked. A few years from now, there won't be any Swedish troops left to send, save for a conscript mech inf. army. But that one will be too busy parading around in Sarajevo, with a smiling combat dressed Göran Persson* in the front...

*Our beloved prime minister. He is the most exalted and wise.

I've read some articles that sossarne may loose the next election - would that change this ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


As I already had an occasion to say in this thread, the printed press is still free. There are free radio stations. TV became more controlled indeed. But, you would hate to hear this (and it seems that this offended Sikander), it has basically been reduced from a total permissiveness of the Yeltsin era to an American-style self-restraint.

).

So I take it you have 4 networks that are largely hostile to Putin, and one that automatically defends him?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You are making me afraid. Secret services are needed for a proper functioning of the state. They were almost crushed under Yeltsin.

Err, secret services are needed indeed, but only to gather information about violent groups that cannot be fought with the rule of law. A secret police (the way we Westerners understand it) is not the same as ordinary secret services: it strikes people in a completely non-transparent manner, and without following the Law.

The rule of Law is extremely important to a functioning democracy (and the State can still function properly), and a secret police is by nature incompatible with this principle.

I don't know where DanS has it from, that your secret police is resurging. However, if he has good clues of tsuch a resurgence, it is something that you as a supporter of the democratic principles (even though you want a specific brand of democracy adapted to Russia), should be very wary of.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Huh?

Sorry. I realize that it can be misunderstood. What i meant was that other than EU countries are members such as Canada, Iceland, USA and Turkey - wouldn't mind if others joined.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I've read some articles that sossarne may loose the next election - would that change this ?

I'm not sure what all the other parties think, but probably our army will be dismantled so fast that it won't matter.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor


I don't know where DanS has it from, that your secret police is resurging.

SF Chronicle

DEMOCRACY ON THE BRINK: SPY MANIA
Arrest wave called Soviet-style tactic
Russian journalists, scholars face new version of the KGB
Anna Badkhen, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, March 7, 2004


Obninsk, Russia -- The room is empty now. Only shadows of the happiness that once filled this cozy apartment flicker in the children's paintings on the walls and the smiling family portraits on the desk where Igor Sutyagin used to while away his evenings in carefree telephone and e-mail conversations with colleagues around the world.

It was a dream come true for Sutyagin, an arms researcher in Obninsk, 60 miles south of Moscow. But the dream shattered one morning four years ago when Russian security police barged in, confiscated Sutyagin's research and even some of his daughters' drawings, took Sutyagin away and later accused him of spying for the United States.

Now, the telephone he once used is tapped; someone listens to any conversations that his wife, Irina Manannikova, have at home. And Sutyagin has been in jail more than three years awaiting trial.

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), the domestic successor of the Soviet KGB, says Sutyagin is a spy who passed on information about Russian nuclear submarines and weapons and missile warning systems and should be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. But international human rights groups say he is one of a number of innocent victims in a chain of trumped-up cases intended to bring back the paranoid secrecy of the Cold War era.

Sutyagin's case, they say, symbolizes the resurgence of Soviet-style tactics since Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB colonel, first ascended to power as prime minister in 1999.

With Putin headed for almost certain re-election to another four-year term as president next Sunday, rights advocates fear the FSB will be free to prosecute more spy cases like Sutyagin's.

"The FSB has regained a lot of its old powers (under Putin). They've become a very powerful force," said Diederik Lohman, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, based in New York. "Old habits die hard."

Rights advocates have dubbed the chilling string of arrests of scholars, journalists and lawyers "spy mania.'' At its core lies the FSB's nostalgia for Soviet-era secrecy and desire for total control over any information it perceives to be "sensitive," Lohman said.

In its 2003 annual report on human rights, the U.S. State Department warned that the "alleged espionage cases ... caused continued concerns regarding the lack of due process and the influence of the FSB in court cases. "

Putin has said that such prosecutions are justified and that scholars, environmentalists and journalists often pose as fronts for foreign spy cells. In December, FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev boasted that the agency had caught five foreign spies "red-handed" and had put an end to spying and subversive activities by 14 career spies and 37 agents of foreign states, Interfax news agency reported.

Human Rights Watch and other critics say that the defendants are often not allowed to see the charges against them, and that FSB officials sometimes publicly label the defendants guilty even before their cases go to court. '

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. there are probably people who support reducing corruption, but voted against Yusch cause they fear he will reduce language rights of russian speakers in east Ukraine. If he can assuage those concerns, he can develop a broader coalition on economic issues.

If he can really assuage those concerns, good for him. Russian speakers have a vivid example of what happens to Russian speakers under the patronage of the EU and NATO (see Latvia and Estonia). They really don't want to become second-sort citizens.

2. The big change is political - the large numbers of people protesting in the streets, for days, in conditions of severe cold, to take back a fraudulent election. THATS a change in the polity, whatever happens in terms of corruption.

You should keep in mind that all those protests are in Kiev, where 80% are for Yushchenko. A city which voted in mass for Yushchenko was disappointed that their candidate lost.