EU through rose-tinted glasses?
Do we see what actually happens or just what we want to see? Reporting the European Union is a delicate business, simply because so many people despise it and its works, but that doesn't mean we should see it through the opposite of rose-tinted spectacles.
I reported on TV last night that the EU summit was "surprisingly tough" mainly because of the suspension of talks on a partnership with Russia, but also because of pretty strong robust language both in the summit conclusions and in President Sarkozy's news conference.
But the questions I kept getting from colleagues in London were along the lines of the European Union's weakness or failure. It wasn't so much what they were reading or hearing coming out of the summit but what they expected, and what they expect from EU summits.
One newspaper this morning has the headline that
"Brown fails to make EU punish Russia" and reports he struggled to find backing for the plan to suspend talks. Another newspaper calls the summit "limp" and says it "shied away from imposing sanctions".
The fact is that at the meeting of ambassadors on Thursday that prepares the basic agreement for the summit no one, including Britain's representative, raised the question of sanctions. No other organisation or country has proposed economic sanctions - maybe they should but they haven't, so the EU is not out on a limb.
This hiatus in the partnership agreement was put on the table and supporter by the leaders themselves.Now, before anyone writes that I am trying to puff up EU foreign policy or make the organisation out to be more successful than it is let me hasten to add that is not my aim. I just think, given the well known difficulties the EU has, both in coming to any agreements and the reluctance of some European countries to say "boo" to Russia this was an unexpectedly robust result. In fact had the USA been in the middle of talks with Russia and called them off the headlines would have been about a "tough Bush response" and it would probably have been a lead story. But we know the funny old EU can't get its act together don't we?
None of which is today that the EU might well not follow up its initial words or back down in the face of Russian displeasure. If it does I will report it as it is, not as some think it should be.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~11~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The EU did not impose any sanctions because even though the European leaders behave like overly confident hypocrits, they are hardly idiots. They know that there is NOTHING to 'punish' Russia for. NOTHING. So nothing will be done - get used to it.
Complain about this comment
It is well known in Ireland that the British press is often full of crap when it comes to reporting on the EU. They seem to try and bend the facts around their preconceived conceptions rather than trying to report what is actually happening.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr. Mardell,
I was wondering if you could picture yourself, how it would be, if by some miracle Europe has to depend on it's energy supplies, just on Middle East and Americans?? Having in mind state of their economy, and their brotherly love for Europeans, how much would be liter of gas? I know for one saying that probably translates into many languages and it, basically, reads: Do not anger one that you will have to bag for a favor soon.
Complain about this comment
The wheels of diplomacy grind slowly. Sarkozy has got a go-ahead to press Russia to withdraw its forces. Is the Russian miliatary under control? Not completely, I fear. As such sactions are like a two edged sword : they hurt both sides. But a bit of realism about Russian strategic intentions is clearly needed in some European capitals eg Italy and Germany. The best the EU could now do is to fully enforce de-coupling of petroleum and gas pipelines from the raw material producers to prevent non-EU organisations controlling the entire production, transportation and distribution process which creates a vertical monopoly. The Electricity grids have already been seperated from the generators and distributors, despite opposition from the generator/distributors. It is being done for telecomms. The same needs to be done for gas. Gazprom is already trying to block such moves as are Gaz de France and Eion in Germany , but "tough luck", EU consumer security of supply is much more important! Russian attempts to dominate the EU economy by controlling key strategic raw materials/energy sources and thereby exert crude political pressure in a modernised form of traditional Russian imperialism whereby it treated Eastern/Central Europe as a colonial empire for over half a century needs to be cleverly blocked. Sanctions will not do it. Good EU open market enforced policies will.
Complain about this comment
This sentence makes no sense at all: "None of which is today that the EU might well not follow up its initial words or back down in the face of Russian displeasure."
Complain about this comment
EU needs to forget about Russian gas and needs to stand up to this authoritarian regime.
Murders and illegal detainment of political and economic opponents and journalists, censorship, punishment of citizens who exercise their voting rights in undesirable ways, crackdown on demostrations, police abuse, genocide in Chechnya, supply of dangerous weapons and technology to hostile countries, money-laundering, bribes and economic crime throughout Europe and other countries, all of this is Russia.
What is the point of the EU if it cannot even unite to defend itself and take measures against Europe's biggest enemy (the regime in Moscow, not the Russian people)?
The EU needs to break diplomatic, economic and other ties with Russia until the current regime changes and starts to respect human rights and other countries.
Complain about this comment
The US, which does not depend on Russia for energy, uses the NATO leverage to make Europeans pawns in its game of global domination. Prodding the Russian bear with new members and military bases along its borders was extremely ill-advised. Oil and gas can be easily piped away to China and Japan while Europeans will be left with local wars, inter-ethnic crises and cold, cold winters to deal with. Active positive engagement of Russia is the only option. Aggravating the new resurgent Russia only plays into American hands, incapacitating Europe as a global competitor.
Complain about this comment
EU should get rid of prejudices.
Nobody suspects that nationalism still have place in the international relations. But this kind of difference is obviously less and less a driving force than it was in the past. Maybe within EU, but not outward, in relation with the rest of the world.
EU government, if there is one, is clearly not efficient as that of Russian's and USA. No wonder EU has not succeeded in being equal counter in this arena.
Complain about this comment
Mark, not all of us in the UK have a negative view of the EU. Only last night, I was listening to a BBC report about Romany people in the Czech Republic going to the European Court of Justice to fight for the right for their children to receive a proper education. ...just one of the many ways that the EU works its magic, bringing up standards for all.
Many of the measures may be unpopular in some countries - no doubt some in the Czech republic will see that move as unwarranted 'foreign' interference in their affairs - but that is exactly where the EU does most good, just as EU employment legislation (such as the right to 4 weeks paid holiday per year) has driven up standards here, often in the teeth of tabloid opposition.
Mind you, the UK hardly feels like a member state of the EU in many ways:
the rest of Europe gets Schengen open borders, we get Stalinist e-border controls on leaving as well as entering the UK;
the rest get the Euro, we get Gordon Brown's plummeting Pound;
they will shortly get the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, we get 42 days imprisonment without even being charged let alone tried;
they get the world-standard metric system, we have foreign lorry drivers driving up the M1 trying to fathom out what a width restriction of 6' 6'' means
Please carry on giving us a balanced view of the EU - there is much to praise as well as to criticise.
Complain about this comment
@ajsinclair (2)
if the press would report on the EU in an honest way, they wouldn't be fawning over it. Instead they'd be continually attacking it for its covert drive to eliminate national parliamentary democracy.
@oulematu (6)
what about the EU's own complete anti-democraticness and total lack of popular mandate? I consider the EU to be an illegal form of government imposed upon us from above.
@bonybbony (8)
and that's because people like me will keep opposing the EU at every possibility because we don't like its total lack of popular mandate or utter contempt for national parliamentary democracy.
Complain about this comment
As a Brit who has lived in Brussels, I couldn't agree more with the comments of AjSinclair regarding the British press and the EU.
Complain about this comment
@SuperJulianR (9)
do you also like how the EU has effectively eliminated national parliamentary democracy by removing vetoes and transferring powers to unelected political elites (EU politburo aka commission) who are not subject to meaningful democratic control? Do you love it how a government minister can go through Brussels, make a law with his council friends (together with the aforementioned politburo) and thus bypass his national parliament altogether.
Don't go and say that a national parliament could hold a government minister accountable, because they can not. The national parliaments can do absolutely nothing to stop government ministers from going through Brussels and passing laws via there. In effect, government ministers have usurped the national parliaments' legislative powers (now wielded by them jointly with the EU politburo).
These government ministers thus wield both executive and legislative powers, which is a blatant breach of the separation of powers.
Also, you must love the concept of limitless one-sided centralization of powers.
I remind you, the system cannot be reformed. It is immune to reform.
I say: full popular sovereignty/democracy FIRST, everything else later. And not the other way 'round (EU elites saying: give us the powers now, maybe later we'll 'generously' grant some democracy). Rights of man are not derived from politicians or treaties, they exist no matter what.
Complain about this comment
"#9 Mind you, the UK hardly feels like a member state of the EU in many ways:
the rest of Europe gets Schengen open borders, we get Stalinist e-border controls on leaving as well as entering the UK"
Ignoring the fact that under Stalin NO-ONE left the USSR there IS a reason for this and its quite simple.... go on HYS and read any debate with any relevance to immigration. The British public DO NOT WANT uncontrolled entry to the UK. Being an island we can more or less control our borders which the rest of Europe cannot. You can't walk round the English Channel.
Equally regarding '42 days'.. you can be detained for years in most European countries without trial and least the UK and Eire have juries. The rest of the EU don't.
I have also never seen a width restriction sign thats only in imperial and foreign lorry drivers ignore most of our traffic laws anyway.
Complain about this comment
To view this objectively, we need to dispose of some entirely false and frankly spurious presuppositions. It is not the case that the EU has a foreign policy. It certainly tries when important issues arise to write a hymn sheet from which all members can sing with varying degrees of enthusiasm and there is some attempt to get everyone to sing in key but this is a very different matter from having a common foreign policy across the whole range of key areas. It may be an objective in the medium term and euro-enthusiasts can argue with some justification that it is a desirable one. To have a common foreign policy, the EU would need to speak with a single voice at the Security Council, have a unified command and control structure for the implementation of the policy tool of last resort - the military option - and collective membership of NATO. Since none of the above are in place, the best it can reasonably do is to respond to specific situations on an ad hoc basis. It is therefore absurd to expect to compare the EU's response to a given situation with that of the Russian Federation or the United States. They are sovereign entities, the EU is patently not.
Secondly, it is absurd to suggest as oulematu at #6 does, that the EU should break ties with non-democratic regimes and those with less than impeccable human rights records. Italy has just entered a new accommodation with Libya, the French continue to be engaged in Chad and elsewhere in Africa, the major arms manufacturers of Europe include many non-democratic governments among their best customers and China is a huge force in the trade of all member states. Not only does the idea that we should not engage with such countries belong in cloud cuckoo land but it completely ignores the fact that if you do not engage with the people with whom you do not agree, you forgo an opportunity to influence them for the better.
Thirdly, we should at least get our history right (the previous thread refers). Any comparison between the current situation and that which pertained with Czechoslovakia in 1938 is entirely spurious and highly misleading. In the first place, there was no treaty of alliance in place between Georgia and NATO, the EU or any other western defense or foreign policy institution or, as far as I am aware, any bilateral arrangements between Georgia and any member state. Whatever posters might think about the Georgian attempt to bring the South Ossetians into line or the Russian response, it is quite clear that both parties reacted on their own initiative. If either side was in violation of any treaty arrangement it was with the other and not with third parties. It is certainly questionable whether either side acted entirely within international law but that is another matter. The word appeasement arises from the abandonment of a treaty obligation in 1938 which Menedemus and I have discussed at length elsewhere but the word has no place in the current debate where no such treaty obligations were in place.
Like others, I have strongly held views about the current situation but it helps no one to start from a position of historical or factual inaccuracy.
Complain about this comment
"The peace cannot be kept by force. it can only be achieved by understanding."
Albert Ainstein
But what can do the world, if Russia cannot understand them?
1. Decrease prise for "black gold";
2. Not allow them to become the part of World Trade Organization;
3. No Veto right for Russia in UN.
Complain about this comment
#15. The main problem is that we can only do item 2 in your list. Oil prices are set by OPEC and OPEC controls the west to a large extent. For what its worth oil prices ARE decreasing- down to $111 from $147 a few months back but they could easily rise, not least if Russia blows up a few pipelines in Georgia.
Equally Russia's veto in the UN is set in stone, precisely because it balances out the US's veto. Legally how would you strip Russia of the veto?
We can stop them joining the WTO but thats hardly a big deal really.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Russia has Offered and is Always Offering Virtual Dialogue in Big Picture Matters. It is Odd that the West would choose not to See that.
What is it that they are Loathe to Discuss whenever there is Everything 42 Gain?
And I would Propose a Virtually Transparent Approach/ Special Access ProgramMIng XXXXPloring Advanced Artificial Intelligence Solutions to Analogous Problems. ....... which are Only Binary Conflicts ESAIly Resolved with Future Memory.
Complain about this comment
To (10):"and that's because people like me will keep opposing the EU at every possibility because we don't like its total lack of popular mandate or utter contempt for national parliamentary democracy."
Ironic, isn't it? EU membership is the only referendum in UK history put to the whole electorate (1975). Our elected representatives take part in nominating commissioners, and the EU parliament is directly elected.
And yet they still lack a mandate.
Instead of showing total disregard for people who are not fuelled by some primary nationalistic feeling on told that our government could be in Belgium, or even worse, France, Euro-sceptics should put all their efforts towards a useful goal, build a time-machine, and go and have a re-match of the 1970 general-election standing on what they believe.
Or do whatever, but please shut up about it. Harsh perhaps, but some of us remain convinced that the EU is a good thing and are sick of people being up in arms as soon as the BBC tries to report about something positive from the EU, which they hardly ever do anyway.
I'm not sick of the EU, or of the unbalanced nature of BBC reporting, just of the unbalanced people writing comments about how evil the EU is, and posturing as if they were heroes/liberal martyrs/representative of some overwhelming majority*.
* Last time round, over 2/3 wanted to stay in the EU. At the worst, let's have another referendum, but as a nation, our inability to do anything constructive on the European stage is getting ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Christopher Meyer (not someone I always agree with) has a very good article in today's The Times (A return to 1815 is the way forward for Europe.
The return of Realpolitik.
Complain about this comment
#18 "Ironic, isn't it? EU membership is the only referendum in UK history put to the whole electorate (1975). Our elected representatives take part in nominating commissioners, and the EU parliament is directly elected."
No. Membership of a trade organisation called the EEC comprising less than a dozen of the richest countries in Western Europe was put to a referendum. No one asked us if we were prepared to give away our currency, territorial waters, legal system, immigration controls etc.
I can promise you that if a time machine were invented and details of what the EU has become the NO vote would be 99% (and I doubt the channel tunnel would be built either)
Complain about this comment
oulematu @ wrote:
"What is the point of the EU if it cannot even unite to defend itself and take measures against Europe's biggest enemy (the regime in Moscow, not the Russian people)?"
You are confused. Russia is not the EU's biggest enemy (Remember, that Georgia and the Ukraine are not in the EU - no matter how many EU flags display behind their leaders).
When was the last time Russia bombed trains in Madrid or London? (Like our real enemies do).
You go on to say: The EU needs to break diplomatic, economic and other ties with Russia until the current regime changes and starts to respect human rights and other countries.
Well, using those criteria we wouldn't have diplomatic relations or economic ties with three-quarters of the world's states.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio @14
Merely to continue the discussion and not because I particularly care whether people see similarities between Czechoslaovakia 1938 and Georgia 2008 . . . . . .
Appeasement is "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous."
In regard to Czechoslovakia 1938 only France had any treaty obligation with Czechoslovakia and, factually, Deladier for France was a reluctant appeaser compared to Chamberlain who perfidiously surrendered the Sudetenlands and thus about 75% of Czechoslavakia's resources to Germany without the consent of Czechoslovakians. The Czechoslovakians were prepared to fight Germany to defend their national existence until the British fait accompli was presented to them after Chamberlain's final meeting with Hitler at Munich. 6 months later (March 1939)Germany took what they had not been granted by appeasement
The negation of treaty obligation is an irrelevance when discussing appeasement.
To me, appeasement, is the surrender of freedom of the few to ensure the freedom of the many.
If the EU or the US or indeed any component country of the free West fails to support the freedom of Georgia (regardless of views held as to whether the Georgians are good, bad or indifferent people and whether the Georgian actions on 7th August 2008 were sensible or responsible) and by doing so ensure that they are absolved of any hostile complications with Russia they will be guilty of appeasement.
Fortunately, the EU Statement on EU-Russia does not appear to appease Russia: it clearly states that all 27 EU Countries abjure the Russia recognition of independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, recognises that the Troops have not yet returned to their start lines of 7th August (as required by the six-point agreement) and suspends discussions on the EU-Russian Trade Pact until the troops have withdrawn. More importantly, Sarkozy and Solano have been given 8th September as a date to verify that the Russians have withdrawn to the start points back in Russia proper and that is where the EU has been weak (by being equivocable) - the Council of Ministers do not specify what action the EU will take if the Russians continue to occupy South Ossetia or even Georgia proper.
My fear remains that the EU will eventually decide that Georgia's freedom is not worth defending and accept the fait accompli that Russian Troops will continue to bully Georgia by their presence until the government of Georgia is changed by internal revolt.
In that sense, by doing nothing to restrain Russia, the EU will have effectively ceded Georgia to the control of Russia and the current freedom of Georgia as a sovereign state sacrificed on the alter of appeasing Russia to avoid hostile complications.
Only in this sense do I draw parallels with Czechoslaovakia 1938 and Georgia 2008.
Please do not lightly dimiss my observations and opinions as "entirely spurious and highly misleading" - this is my view and carefully thought through to a point where I await the next actions of the Aggressor Nation (Russia) and the potential Appeasers (the EU) to see if the freedom of Georgia will be lost for lack of spine and required responsibility of free nations to defend freedom and liberty of weaker and/or smaller free nations.
Complain about this comment
#21. When was the last time Russia assasinated someone in London? You don't need bombs to kill- polonium is far nastier.
Our 'real enemies' as you call them fight almost exclusively with Russian made and/or designed weapons.
Equally if Russia turns off the gas for several months in mid-winter it WILL kill far more than madrid and 7/7 combined. Even Britain which doesn't buy Russian gas (ours is home grown or Norwegian) will be hit hard by the skyrocketing market price of the gas that is available.
That said I agree totally that breaking off relations with Russia is insane and guaranteed to make things worse.
Complain about this comment
To (20). Fair point. Although the Maastricht treaty was approved by our elected representatives. The problem would be with them then.
Also, in my comment I notice I put " just of the unbalanced people writing comments about how evil the EU is,", sorry, that's a typo, I actually meant to put "unbalanced comments".
I'm not that nasty.
My main point remains. In theory, we allow our elected officials to make decisions on our behalf. That is what democracy means.
If we are unhappy, we do not re-elect the officials, and we take constructive efforts to reverse the decisions (such as pushing for leaving or for a 2-tier EU or something). We do not go around saying that everybody else is an idiot or that the decision is undemocratic.
People have to accept they are in the minority sometimes on some issues.
I am just sick of people making comments that in no-way bring new arguments to the table. Having 25 comments on every post on this blog saying how the nasty EU stole our sovereignty can be..., especially that by definition, we are sovereign in the EU. If we go down that path, I do not see how Eurosceptics can justify the existence of the UK. The act of Union is a whole new level compared to Maastricht (and Lisbon) surely.
But then its not my politics, maybe that's what they are pushing for?
Complain about this comment
I believe that EU (as well as the US) would like to punish Russia but really has no leverage at all. The part that the Russians were counting on is that both EU and US consider themselves "mature and level headed" entities. Read this as "we'll do anything that won't cause us to be inconvenienced, especially near an election". Put in a Cold War example, if today's politicians (both US and EU) had been in charge after WW II when Russia blockaded Berlin, do you really think that the Berlin airlift would have happened? Instead we'd be having meetings about how stern the wording should be on the threat to think about issuing a threat to reconsider having anything to do with Russia without actually doing anything. And at the end of the day, Berlin would have been written off as "too small" to risk upsetting Russia over.
Russia knows this. I believe this whole Russian intervention in Georgia was planned to happen just before the fall and winter season in Europe. Should Europe actually try to impose any real punishment for Russia's failure to abide by the cease fire agreement, Russia only needs to have "technical difficulties" with the natural gas pipelines and shut the taps for a week. Georgia would soon be left on her own, much like Czechoslovakia was before WWII.
The US would bluster, but when faced with telling the electorate that they might face some sort of hardship, the politicians would chicken out and settle for a toothless resolution introduced at the UN (which they know would be vetoed by Russia) so they can say they tried....
Wait until the next time Russia wants something from a neighbor. Suddenly half the offending country's citizens will have Russian passports and Russian tanks will be rolling in to protect it's "citizens" from harm. By this argument, Russia could invade New York City since there are a huge number of Russian expats living there who need "protecting".
Complain about this comment
To (22): As Toomas Ilves pointed out in an interview to Le Monde, the only two people to have used arguments of a minority of citizens abroad (South Ossetians/Abkhazians with Russian passports) to invade a neighbouring country in recent history are Hitler and Milosevic (Serbs in the rest of Yougoslavia/Sudeten-Germans).
And Sarkozy's comments seeming to justify that argument understandably did not seem to please the Baltic and Ukrainian governments.
Complain about this comment
What is the opposite of rose-tinted spectacles? Sludge green perhaps?
Complain about this comment
After Friday's hard stance it was difficult for EU leaders to come to a face-saving consensus on Monday. That's because the Georgian militias actually did not behave themselves in South Ossetia, and the Ossetians in turn torched a few Georgian towns. Russian destruction in "Georgia proper" is limited when compared to destruction in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This can be independently verified.
Of course the Russians are not innocent either, evident in that they had planned and orchestrated ahead.
So because of the well-known differences of opinion inside of the EU, because the evidence of destruction that is not in Georgia's favour, and because of the heated previous rhetoric, slapping Russia with a noodle was the only face-saving and politically realistic option.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @22 wrote:
"... the Council of Ministers do not specify what action the EU will take if the Russians continue to occupy South Ossetia or even Georgia proper."
We all know the answer: hot air.
Peter_Sym @23, I think you'll find that the bombs that exploded in London and Madrid were not of Russian (or ex-Soviet) source.
You'll also have to agree that the people our troops are fighting in Afghanistan are not the natural allies of Russia. far from it.
I have suggested before (only partially in jest) is that we let Russia join NATO and the EU on condition that they first make sure that Afghanistan and Waziristan are pacified for the next hundred years or so.
Complain about this comment
Dear Sirs,
I think that the UK still looks Russia through a red glass of the Communist era. There are elements of Russia which nobody likes, but the fact that Georgians started killing lots of innocent civilians and enlarge 'their territory', presumably, to be followed by exhaustive ethnic cleansing of the enclave. Why would Russia need to listen to the UK?
What needs to be done is to carry out exhaustive war crime tribunal who did and what and throw gun politicians behind bars. EU uses similar excuses when it pleases, for Turkey; it is the extermination of Armenians. This is taken to "justify" keeping Turkey out of European Union, sadly, no one those committing atrocities are alive today, unlike in Georgia which is a fresh ethnic cleanser.
Who asked a small dog to bite butt of big bear, nose bleeding, it is always UK willing to send troops and our soldiers to die for other men’s wars and for oil companies.
Yours sincerely,
Veli Albert Kallio
Complain about this comment
Why does no one condemn Georgia? They were the initial aggressors in all this and when they in turn were attacked they claimed to be helpless victims. I am not pro Russian by any means but I am confused as to what makes the good or bad guy in these situations. Our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are the good guys but the Russians in Georgia are the bad guys? I am sure that there are good arguments to differentiate between them but to the average Russian it would simply be the World being biased against them. And I can see their point.
Complain about this comment
Dear Sirs,
I think that the UK still looks Russia through a red glass of the Communist era. There are elements of Russia which nobody likes, but the fact that Georgians started killing lots of innocent civilians and enlarge 'their territory', presumably, to be followed by exhaustive ethnic cleansing of the enclave. Why would Russia need to listen to the UK?
What needs to be done is to carry out exhaustive war crime tribunal who did and what and throw gun politicians behind bars. EU uses similar excuses when it pleases, for Turkey; it is the extermination of Armenians. This is taken to "justify" keeping Turkey out of European Union, sadly, no one those committing atrocities are alive today, unlike in Georgia which is a fresh ethnic cleanser.
Who asked a small dog to bite butt of big bear, nose bleeding, it is always UK willing to send troops and our soldiers to die for other men’s wars and for oil companies.
Yours sincerely,
Veli Albert Kallio
Complain about this comment
#22 - Menedemus
You misunderstand me if you infer that I regard your comments as spuriuous and misleading. On the contrary, we have had a number of interesting exchanges. I thought I had made it clear that it was the earlier matters about EU foreign policy and having dialogue outside of the 'democratic family'.
I thought that was clear when I named another poster in this respect. Occasionally I may disagree with you but I always read you comments with interest and respect your views.
Complain about this comment
EU is a fledgling aglomeration of states with many diverging historical backrounds and cultural encumberances. In effect it behaves like a 29 headed hydra and even each of those heads can change her mind.
The only thing that ties them togeather is their desire to belong. But the hart is Germany and France.
In retrospect one can see that the hasty inclusion of the New Europe was an error.
These states are still smarting from their perceived injustices by USSR and crave vengence.
Two things need to be said in this regard.
First: none of those little states (Poland happens to be larger than the rest) have a clean sheet of injustice. They all have head their home grown perpetuators of the Socialist System who at times were in majority. So do not cry too much about oppression by USSR. Look under the carpet.
Second: None of these states have a clean sheet of never having attacked Russia or USSR. They all marched on Osten at one time or another. Especially Poland needs to look into the mirror of history.
These states should count their blessings of having had the good luck to latch on to Old Europe without too much pain.
The watered down EU declaration against Russia is well within EU's current ability.
As fore the subject of NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine - Europe should dump this idea as fast as possible. All they are doing is creating tension within those states - especially Ukraine.
It is bad enough it was allowed to take place to this extent in the former Warsaw Pact countries. My prediction is Ukraine will end up in a civil war and broken into two because at least half the population is Russian speaking with their loyalties in Russia. Let me pose a question: how safe would NATO feel in Ukraine? How safe would Europe feel with Ukraine being in NATO? How safe does Europe feel with the Baltic states being in NATO?
And finally, NATO which in effect is the main foreign policy tool of USA in Europe is being used to create friction within Europe. USA is using it to weaken EU and create a wedge between EU and Russia, UK is using it to limmit the power of EU and slow down the inevitable unification and Poland is using it to punish Russia and wrest concession from EU by cosying up to USA. Indeed a very complex dance which could bring us to a nasty and possibly nuclear war.
I keep asking myself this question but can't find a logical answer: If the Europeans are afraid of Russia to such extent why don't they try to bring her into the fold? I mean- how much more Democracy (if that is the issue) has existed in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Croatia, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary or Moldova than in Russia? (Sorry if I missed some of the little states)
Russia is European like it or not. She belongs to Europe.
The question is: who would bennefit and who would loose from Russia being inside EU?
Complain about this comment
#34, emanuelkant, you can't possibly be serious.
If NATO is such a bad idea, then why did every
country occupied by the Soviets in Europe
clamor to get into it as soon as they could?
Was it all just an American conspiracy?
But I agree that the Ukraine may be headed
for civil war. That would be a perfect opportunity
for the Russians to intervene and nibble off
a piece to "protect their citizens."
Complain about this comment
Isn't the real issue here that the UK policy is the most hawkish in the EU not out of the national interest but because the government is still dragged along by the nose by Bush and Cheney?
Der Spiegel is reporting firstly that EU monitors in South Ossetia at the time report that Saakashvilli's claim that Russia attacked first is untrue and secondly that the White House has confirmed that one of Cheney's senior staff was in Tbilisi to see Saakashvilli a few days before the war broke out. Spiegel suspects mischief-making in aid of McCain's presidential campaign.
Whether that is true or not, I would like to think that the government would have learnt a lesson from Blair's folly in sucking up to Cheney. And in particular that any Labour government would be at worst neutral in terms of McCain vs Obama, and preferably quietly supportive of Obama.
Considering that Saakashvilli's action started all this and also the state of the US election, this is not a good time for Labour to be doing Cheney's bidding by hyping up a new cold war. Germany and France, with supposedly more conservative governments, are being much more measured in their response than Brown and Milliband.
Complain about this comment
@hrcolyer (18)
The 1975 referendum most specifically was NOT about EU membership. It was about continuing EEC membership. And the politicians, Ted Heath most prominent among them, most specifically said that it was an economic community only and that there were absolutely no plans whatsoever for any degree of political union.
Besides, the EU only came into existance in 1992, seventeen years after Ted Heath et al lied through their teeth to get the British to vote yes. How do we know Ted Heath lied? First of all, he himself admitted lying ('of course I bloody knew'), and second, the European Commission in 1970 approved a report by Belgian foreign minister Etienne Davignon. Topic: how to achieve political union.
And as for our government being in Brussels. You could not be more right. The EU is most decidedly not an institution, but a layer of government. Not superstate, but supergovernment (in embryonic form). Most things needed are in place already. An executive (EU politburo), a judiciary (EU courts), a parliament (even though it has no real parliamentary powers), governmental departments (agriculture, fisheries e.a.), an embryonic federal police (Europol).
Not much more is needed to make it a superstate as well as a supergovernment. Think about an official flag and anthem (no problemo, will be inserted by the Council in the near future), a foreign policy and army (which they are slowly trying to build, hoping no-one notices), a diplomatic corps (being built as we speak), supremacy of the EU itself over the memberstates (at this moment only most EU law is supreme, with the Lisbon treaty the EU itself will become supreme). Getting there, I'd say. One thing EU elites specifically want to avoid, is too much popular influence, ie democracy.
And as for the point you make in post 24. Sure, the UK could vote Labour out next time, but the UK will be stuck with the Lisbon Treaty they ratified against the wishes of the British people. You seem to believe that politicians, national parliaments ea have the right to permanently cede their powers. I assure you they do not have that authority, sovereignty belongs to the people. I did not elect any national parliament so they could abdicate their responsibility to others whom I cannot elect or vote out. Sure, I could vote them out next time, but once powers are ceded to the EU, they never return.
Complain about this comment
@gunsandreligion (35)
why do so many countries want to get into NATO? Simple, they want others to pay for their security. Its a great way of not having to build up your own defensive capabilities because the US army, paid for by US taxpayers, is treaty-bound to come and bail you out.
How did Europe ever manage to afford lavish spending on welfare programs? Simple, they assured themselves that the US would do the defending and arming for them and therefore didn't bother to build up their own. I'm amazed the US put up with that for so long.
Complain about this comment
Mark
Over summer I've been busy, at home in France, playing host to my grandchildren - and finding time to read up on the EU, it's history and what it stands for. On my return to your blog, I find that your opening comments "tell it as it is".
Most contributers to this blog just "see it as they want to see it". Pro and anti EU supporters display little knowledge but loads of prejudice.
But, as I was warned long ago: you can't fight emtionally held views with logic. So I won't try.
I think your blogs are balanced, occasionally (deliberately?) provocative - but more readable than most contributions. Keep up the good work.
Complain about this comment
At the risk of returning to a side issue,
@12 mcdv-1975
Much of what you say about majority voting simply follows from the EU being a supra-national body (as the UK is too of course) and is necessary if it is to work. There is a strong argument for enhancing the powers of the European Parliament at the expense of the Commission and the Council of Ministers to improve democratic accountability, but that is another issue.
But if you really wanted your freedom guaranteed, you had better not stay in the UK at all - ALL of our rights in this country are at the discretion of Parliament and can be removed at any time, except to the extent that we have the benefit of rights guaranteed by supra-national bodies like the EU
@ 13 Peter_Sym
The UK is actually more than one island and does of course have a land border (with the Irish Republic). That border is open to road and rail traffic which passes unhindered, just like any Schengen border, an arrangement which the UK Government has pledged to continue and it works very well.
'E-borders' is actually far more an exercise in power and control, and a re-assertion of sovereign control by the 'nation-state' over a people that are becoming ever more mobile and thus harder to keep in control - no wonder the Eurosceptics love all this sort of nonsense.
However, these checks will not stop illegal immigrants getting in in lorry trailers, or the Home Office from issuing work permits like confetti to non-EU migrants. Nor will they stop those who do get through from working illegally, obtaining our free health care, claiming benefits and housing, obtaining 'legal aid' so that you and I can pay to fight their deportation. That can only happen with more rigourous checks within the UK to establish entitlements to these things (and sometimes curtail them) and swift removal of those who have broken the law to get or remain here, rather than constructing a fortress around the UK.
Nor will they stop disaffected young people who were born and grew up in Bradford or Leicester from carrying out terrorist acts.
What they will increasingly do is hinder UK/EU passport holders from coming and going as they please, which they are of course fully entitled to do. Delays at ferry and airports are already the worst in Europe and are set to get even worse.
As for non-metric signs - the muppets doing the road widening on the M1 near Nottingham have put up width restriction signs in imperialist measurements only, on England's main north/south motorway used by thousands of foreign drivers. They are also widely used on A roads. Expecting them to obey our traffic laws unitil metric equivalents are shown for width, height and speed is a bit like Wales erecting traffic signs in Welsh only and then prosecuting non-Welsh speaking drivers for failure to comply!
Complain about this comment
#38, mcdv-1975, as we are moving very quickly
from a uni-polar world (as Medvedev calls it)
to a multi-polar world, perhaps reminiscent of
the 19th century, it will be interesting to see
if Europe can come together in collective
security arrangements, or if the Russians will
be able to fragment it by using energy as a weapon.
As far as the US "putting up" with low levels
of European defense spending, this is something
which will disappear in the coming decade.
The US has too many structural economic
problems to fund the Europeans' defense needs.
The Europeans are going to have to take the
bull by its proverbial horns, or become vassals
of a newly emergent Russia.
Complain about this comment
The comparisons with 1938 are pointless scaremongering.
Yes there were Germans in Czechoslovakia, but there was no German Enclave with autonomic powers and a clear desire for seperatism. There was no suppression of this fictional area by the Czech rulers. There was no stopping at the border of this fictional region and there was no withdrawal of any manner.
What there was (which is not the case now) is the threat made by Germany to reunite ALL german peoples by force. The systematic slaughter of thousands of civilians and the displacement of thousands more to Germany to effectively work as slaves.
Frankly this has far more in common with Vietnam and Kuwait than it does WWII
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym @13 and 20
Presumably you regret the construction of the Channel Tunnel because you are terrified of being imprisoned indefintitely if you ever leave these islands? Presumably you never travel to the rest of Europe? You know, those countries that have far fewer prisoners per 1000 population than the UK.
Complain about this comment
If NATO is such a bad idea, then why did every
country occupied by the Soviets in Europe
clamor to get into it as soon as they could?
------------
Fear. For years they had the Soviet army to back them up (as well as impose on them). They had no defense capability of their own. Thus they were scared of invasion either from the Soviets or elsewhere. NATO offered them a safety net.
Complain about this comment
#44, hackerjack, I would submit that very few
Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, or Rumanians are
afraid that the French or Germans would invade
them. But, they are afraid that the French,
Germans, or Italians will not help defend them.
Complain about this comment
Russia does not Belong in the EU or NATO because its aims do not fit with that of either. The only reasons the Russians would join would be to take it over, or destroy it from the inside. There was a chance of bringing Russia "into the fold", but it has passed with Tsar Putin coming into power. Maybe in the next 100 years.
It is silly to say that the USA pays for European defence. Rather it is a symbiosis, the USA prefers to fight its battles away from its own territory (a wise strategy), while Europe provides bases to allow the US to do so. Europe benefits from the added security. Even with the missile shield deal with Poland, Poland will have to pay for the equipment it gets, it will not be given for free.
Emanuelkant, putting all those little and not so little states from the former Soviet sphere on the same moral level as the Soviets after they were opressed for so long, just shows both ignorance and TOTAL lack of sensitivity. It is the classic BLAME THE VICTIM, because the victim provoked the attack, because the victim was not good to begin with, etc. This kind of reasoning was proven false repeatedly in the courts and in the society... so I am frankly perplexed why you bring it up as an argument for relations between countries? Some things are just wrong, and the USSR did them, not those countries you attack!
As for the conspiracy theories posted here in the EU, I pay as much attention to them as reports of UFO sightings.
Complain about this comment
#44,
Er, could it not also be that there was no way they ever wanted to be subjugated again by the Russian bear, after all it has a long history of this. It took years of struggle to free workers in the UK, Todpuddle martyrs etc, and likewise on the continent, and here on this site we have a legion of Russian supporters trying to smear the countries that wish to avoid ever being controlled by Russia again. I am sure that people in the so called self imposed Russian sphere of influence do not wish to return to being middle age peasants.
To hrcolyer, #18, and others, I have lived and worked in mainland Europe for the last 18 years, and during that time I have spoken to lots of people who experienced the former USSR, the leopard has not changed its spots, it has simply regrouped and now feels powerful because our EU politicians have shown their weakness, impotency and desire only to keep their snouts in the public trough.
Complain about this comment
hackerjack @42
You wrote: Yes there were Germans in Czechoslovakia, but there was no German Enclave with autonomic powers and a clear desire for seperatism.
Idiotic twaddle. Read your history books again.
The Sudeten Germans were ethnic Germans as defined by the Rulers of the Third Reich.
Throughout 1933 to 1938 there were Sudeten Germans led by Karl Heinlein and Karl Frank (later to become bigwigs in the Third Reich) exploding bombs and performing acts of terrorism at the direct oders of the Third Reich within Czechoslovakia and calling for self-autonomy for the Sudeten Germans. The objective was to exacerbate the Czechoslovakian Government into acting rashly and antagonising the Sudeten Germans by mass arrests and imprisonments to give Germany excuse to invade Czechoslovakia.
In fact, the Czechoslovakians very carefully extended the Sudeten Germans more and more autonomy and gave them liberties that the rest of Czechoslaovakia could not enjoy. All done to ensure that the Czechoslovakian neighbour, Germany, did not react by invading.
As we now know from reading the German Archives and Historical Records for that time, Hitler and Goering had no intention of letting things lie and, eventually, in 1938 decided to invoke their already planned and scheduled invasion of Czechoslovakia regardless of the niceties afforded to the indigenous Germans living in the Sudetenland.
We now also know, that Neville Chamberlain went to Munich specifically to prevent the invasion of Czechoslaovakia because that meant that France would have had to honour it's treaty of mutual defence with Czechoslovakia which, in turn would have embroiled Great Britain in hostilities with Germany.
South Ossetia has been granted autonomy but has been deliberately goading Georgia for years with armed insurgency. We now understand that Russia has been fermenting this activity and their invasion, mobilised within 5 hours of the Georgian attack upon South Ossetia has to have meant they were already mobilised and ready to invade Georgia with invincible force on 7th August as soon as the Georgians gave them the excuse.
If you cannot see the similarities between Czechoslavakia 1938 and Georgia 2008 then the rose-tinted spectacles to which Mark alludes within this blog item are very much worn by you or, alternatively, you are so ingrained a Russian advocate that no matter how aggressive Russia is it can do no wrong as far as you are concerned and you will defy the logic of history!
Complain about this comment
#35
I couldn't agree more with #34, emanuelkant.
No one is saying that NATO is a bad idea. Its purpose should have been redefined once the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist and the "communist" era ended.
Instead, the US decided that Russia was still powerful enough and used NATO to ensure it is the only remaining superpower and drive Russia into misery.
It is a control issue.
Instead, not only did Russia survive but it is now regaining its strength and wants to secure a role it deserves on the European arena.
The US, weakened by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is driving a wedge between Russia and the rest of Europe thus drawing the necessary support from the European budgets.
And the little states... Well, emanuelkant already said it all. Especially with Poland - bullseye.
Europe and the US bullied Serbia, bombed Belgrade and killed countless civilians, redrew the map and created a second Albanian state. When a civilian convoy was bombed and hundreds were dead instantly, the US said "oops" and Europe closed its eyes.
When Georgia admits to using cluster bombs and alleges that they were used against russian armoured convoy when the Russian troops were not even there yet, the Europe turns a blind eye.
When Russians say they are not interested in annexing neither South Ossetia, nor Abkhazia, no one believes them, well, because they are Russians.
When the Abkhaz leader announces that Abkhazia will not host any Russian military bases on its territory, and Russia agrees, this is not viewed as evidence for the Russian claims. In fact, the Western world is not even aware of it because the media ignore these "inconvenient" facts and they are inconsistent with the image of Russia as the "agressor".
How is Ukraine with its US puppet government more democratic than Russia?
As I've posted in another blog, Ukrainians and Russians share ALL their history and are brothers, and with the current Ukrainian leadership at the lowest of its popularity ever, it is only a matter of time before the relationship between the neighbours will normalize.
Imagine Ukraine as a member of NATO with NATO equipment on its soil rubbing shoulders and cozying up with Russia? Wow, that would be ridiculous now, wouldn't it?
Complain about this comment
I am rather curious, as to why the BBC have failed to cover, link to or even identify the existance of an OSCE report in this last week which points a rather damning finger at Geogia and accepts that Russia did act in self defence.
If that report was put in context with much of the recent BBC reporting it would change the whole shape and smell of this debacle yet its up to the news services outside of the US coalition of the coerced to identify little gems such as this.
And why is it still not being accepted by western media that Georgia shelling Russian troops and crossing the border started this whole shebang off and yet the western media portrays Russia as the aggressor and labels it wholeheartedly responsible for the affair when the very facts say otherwise.
It occurs to me once again that the BBC are acting instead of news providers but more propagandists by witholding salient facts from its readership and that the only arguable fact is whether the strings are being pulled here by Downing Street or Washington, the BBC is something owned by the taxpayer outright and I find it rather odious that we pay for a service that simply mislead us at the behest of either our own policitians whose wages we pay or that of a foreign power...
Complain about this comment
emanuelkant wrote:
"NATO which in effect is the main foreign policy tool of USA in Europe is being used to create friction within Europe"
Before the WWII, Europe was most unstable region on the Earth. War after war, revolution after revolution. If we have now more than 60 years of relative peace, it's not only because Europeans (including Russians) suddenly got wiser, but also because of existence of NATO and American troops in Europe. It looks 60 years is much enough to start believing that peace is as natural air, and confusing cause and effect...
"How safe does Europe feel with the Baltic states being in NATO"
Why was Germany so eager to help Poland to access EU and NATO? Because it's more safe to be surrounded by allies than to be a border country. Why do Poles want Ukrainians in NATO? The same answer. Europe should feel as secure as never before with Baltic states in NATO!
"who would bennefit and who would loose from Russia being inside EU?"
Nobody would! The problem is Russia doesn't want to be in EU. Why would Russia want to accept all the stupid EU restrictions? It's for losers like Poles.
Complain about this comment
#49, oceansapart, if the Ukrainians and
the Russians are so friendly, why did the FSB
feel compelled to attempt to kill Yushchenko
with TCDD dioxin.
Perhaps they ran out of polonium?
Complain about this comment
And here is a piece written by a leading Ukrainian politician
about the subject of European-Russian relations.
Complain about this comment
#52, gunsandreligion, is that an established fact? Or another US-led attempt to drive a wedge between Russians and Ukrainians? Until we see facts, it is nothing more than is the old-fashioned anti-Russian rhetoric.
Have you ever been to Ukraine or Russia? How many Ukrainians or Russians have you met?
I have immediate family in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. And I live in Canada.
My friends here in Canada come from Eastern Ukraine, western Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Not only do we get along well, but pretty much have the same view of what's going on.
So I do know what I'm talking about. And quite honestly, if Yuschenko were to disappear from the face of the earth (god forbid it ever happens because the first thing you will say is that FSB did that), there would be nothing good to remember him by. He is not a true leader as he has very few followers. The fact he was elected was a blunder.
The fact he is the godfather of Saakashvili's son should tell you a lot.
Does anyone have any doubt that Saakashvili is a loon? What you've seen on BBC and youtube hasn't convinced you of that? Running away like a chump puzzling the western journalists then chewing his tie on camera? Is that a leader of a proud nation? There is no way proud Georgians would vote for that excuse of a leader. They deserve better. But now they will still stand behind him (it's Georgian mentality, and I don't mean it in a bad way)
Now remember that old saying "Tell me who is your friend, and I'll tell you who you are"
Well, Yuschenko is more than just a friend to Saakashvili, he is his relative now and a huge embarassment to the majority of Ukrainians. Things will change.
Now, I would love for the Ukraine to join NATO. Russia will enjoy another freebe.
Complain about this comment
28. At 4:10pm on 02 Sep 2008, Weirdo72 wrote:
"So because of the well-known differences of opinion inside of the EU, because the evidence of destruction that is not in Georgia's favour, and because of the heated previous rhetoric, slapping Russia with a noodle was the only face-saving and politically realistic option."
I totally agree with this conclusion. Moreover, the EU should stop critizing Russia because it is ridiculous since the Kosovo precedent and pathetic because they will never pass from words to actions.
One more thing: Western governments are aware that their public opinions oppose any sanctions against Russia or even any more word-condemnation towards the Eurasiatic giant, not least because recession is here, guys!
Cowardice? No, no more moral judgements over the socalled European weakness. Just common sense, real politik.
Poles, Czechs, Baltics and so on: don't ask for more anti Russian beligerence to Western Europe. Get a good deal on neighborhood with Russia, you all live side by side and, come on, Russians are Slavic people like most of you.
Complain about this comment
First of all, I am a Russian, and at the moment I am studying in UK. I have travelled a lot and lived in a number of countries other than Russia for years, though I always returned home at one time or another. I am also a member of a certain national minority in Russia.
I have been following the recent conflict closely, getting information on what was going on from both Russian and foreign media (BBC/CNN/DW/Times etc), as well as blogs of people in Georgia/Russia.
From what I get so far the main catalyst for the conflict was an attack by Georgian Army on SO at night. I can't really say that Russia is blameless in this as it has indeed been supporting SO. However, my personal opinion is that Russia is in the right here (though any military action is wrong by definition), not least because of all the rhetoric from the West.
Let me explain - I never supported Putin, I would always vote for his opponents except in the last election won by Medvedev where I didn't vote at all as there was no real alternative. I would also publicly admit/express my anti-Putin stance if asked if I liked him. However, reading the Western coverage of the conflict that turned it into a "blatant Russian agression" with a "disproportionate use of force" (what is proportionate then?) I am closer than ever in becoming a supporter of Putin/Medvedev tandem. Think about it - as a young Russian with many friends in foreign countries as well as like minded friends in Russia I would resent all those pro-authoritarian reforms in Russia (especially the appointment of governors). But, in recent years, all I see is that the number of such thinking people in Russia is dwindling (including me, I guess), as the actions of the West do indeed make it seem for me that the only thing on its mind is to lock us into a cage of Nato members, forment internal strife among the federal centre and the regions, divide up the country and grab all our resources for itself. I know, this in some part is influenced by in-Russia propaganda (though I don't really watch state channels, but some of my friends do), although, for the large part, it is influenced by the rhetoric from the West (mainly US).
So just try to imagine yourself as an average Russian - the feelings we get when looking at what Nato is doing and what some western leaders are saying. No wonder then that we will support such hard-liners and elect them our presidents. Quite simply - we don't feel safe. And the basic thing we want is safety and stability in our country after all the upheaval of the 90's. And those like Putin do indeed provide it. Or at least seem to - which is enough for most people.
As for Abkhazia and SO - well, I personally would not like to see those regions in Russia - we have enough of our own problems as it is to add theirs on us as well.
Menedemus @ 48
If you try really hard you can draw parallels from anything. However, as I see it - there is no real parallel between 1938 and 2008, for one because the recent post-Soviet history of the region - just research a bit on what Georgia did to Abkhazia/SO in the beginning of the 1990s and after. I would never call that "South Ossetia has been granted autonomy".
Complain about this comment
Well, what EU should have done? Should we retaliate until we are having "Cuban missile crises" in Europe - so that the Brits feel good about themselves like their American cousins? After all, only freedom matters, is doesn't matter how many lives it may take (way over million in Iraq, that broke Saddam's record , and he was supposed to be "EVIL").
Real life is NOT like some American western movie. We can't point each others with guns and wait until someone blinks first. I don't which I am more scared of; American way to handle things, or Russian way.
Brits really should give up the American way. We're not have to tolerate this, but we really should ask ourselves first... why didn't we protect Chechnians then? Are they too far away from Europe compared to Georgia? What's the difference between them and Georgians? Does Chechenians even exist anymore or are they all dead?
Complain about this comment
After Friday's hard stance it was difficult for EU leaders to come to a face-saving consensus on Monday. That's because the Georgian militias actually did not behave themselves in South Ossetia, and the Ossetians in turn torched a few Georgian towns. Russian destruction in "Georgia proper" is limited when compared to destruction in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This can be independently verified.
Osetian militias turchered some houses???
are you listening to yourself?
What distuction in Abxazia you talking about???Russian were those who attacked Georgian controled are in Abxazia,ethnicly cleaning HOLE Georigian poluation from there...
is there any limit for Russian propoganda mashin???
Complain about this comment
The ethnic cleansing and massacres of Georgians has been officially recognized by the OSCE conventions in 1994, 1996 and again in 1997 during the Budapest, Lisbon and Istanbul summits and condemned the “perpetrators of war crimes committed during the conflict.”[19] On May 15 2008, UN General Assembly adopted a resolution (GA/10708) which acknowledges the ethnic cleansing campaign which have been described by OSCE conventions, and strongly emphasizes the return of all Georgian Internally displaced persons (IDPs) back to Abkhazia, protection of their property rights and full restoration of the pre-war population
The 1994 U.S. State Department Country Reports describes scenes of massive human rights abuse, which Human Rights Watch supported based on their own evidence:
The [Abkhaz] separatist forces committed widespread atrocities against the Georgian civilian population, killing many women, children, and elderly, capturing some as hostages and torturing others ... they also killed large numbers of Georgian civilians who remained behind in Abkhaz-seized territory
Complain about this comment
The Finnish Minister for Foreign Affairs and the OSCE chairman Alexander Stubb twice visited the war-affected area in Georgia and accused the Russian troops of "clearly trying to empty southern Ossetia of Georgians."[224]
On August 27, the French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner accused the Russian troops of "ethnic cleansing, creating a homogeneous South Ossetia."[225]
Complain about this comment
On 16 August an AP (American news agency) reporter witnessed groups of Georgian forced laborers in Tskhinvali under armed guard of Ossetians and Russians; South Ossetia's interior minister Mikhail Mindzayev acknowledged this, saying that the Georgians "are cleaning up after themselves."[223] The Independent reported that around 40 Georgian civilian captives, mostly elderly men, were "paraded" through the city and abused by South Ossetians.[189] On 18 August South Ossetian leaders put the number of the hostages at more than 130, roughly half of them women and mostly former Georgian guest workers.[184][183] The kidnapping of civilians by warring parties is a war crime according to the Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[183]
Complain about this comment
Russia's goals are easy to see.
In fact ,president Medvedev said that Russia wants a world without America.
Thats scary.A world without America can only be imagined.Russia is advocatin the multi-polar world,where Russia is a pole with its own sphere of influence.
This is Rubish.
If Russia is to convince Europe to kick America out of Europe,then it would be extremely easy after that for Russia to cut Europe in hundred little slices of cake,that it can chew with gusto*.
America is without doubt the bigest factor for preservation of peace in the world.
Never in the history has there been more free people then under the little American history,never has there been more prosperity,more compassion,more humanism.
Think hard about it,do we really want to throw all that away and be dominated by a country that has seen the most extreme ideologies,the most brutal human right abuses coming out of it.
Look at the Putins language,he is a Prime-minister that uses the index finger as a threat against America in TV interviews.
What are the facts about the war?
Russia did invade a sovereign country,Russia is still inside that country,Russia did break the peace agreement it itself signed.It is threatening anyone who is criticising it.
What is good or fair about that?
America and the west have never embarked on military intervantions without consulting Allies,without U.N resolutions,or broad international consenssus.
Russia's actions in invading Georgia was unnilateral,without any legal basis,without Allies consultation,without U.N mandate.
And the defending of those actions is agresive,Russia is telling the world You dare not Teach us,You dare not touch us.
It is not only an attack on Georgia,but an attack on democracy,and attack on America,an attack on Europe,an attack on international community,and above all an attack on LOGIC.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Everyone knows that Georgia started the "war". They had been trained for six years "to NATO standards" One of the two Jewish Georgian ministers spoke in Hebrew on Israeli rainbow, congratulating Israel for providing such good trainers, besides the Americans, ensuring a Georgian "victory"
The Russians with the precedent of the American Kosovo doctrine cleared the Georgian forces from Osettia in no time at all without using napalm books (which the Americans used in Kosovo) and without bombing TV stations, bridges, factories, school buses etc.
The EU is very good at generating a cornucopia of social legislations but not very good at generating increase in GP and wealth . It also passes "human rights " legislation which seemed aimed at Islamising the Continent.
The EU couldn't do anything much re Russia and didn't. The Russians do not want an overall agreement with the EU but dealings with individual states. And discontinuing the application to the WTO would give them more elbow room.
I think Russia is a key European country with a an amazing abundance of resources whic could be very beneficial to us Europeans. It is a resource -suppliers' market and if Western Europeans do not need them they could be directed eastwards. But we do not want the US or its poodles especially the Baltic statelets to make the decision for us.
Complain about this comment
#62, Named-Erion, your rant doesn't even deserve an answer you are so clueless.
Complain about this comment
By the way, Der Spiegel is Gazprom funded together with it's German Ex-chancellor. Do you have an idear what is the salary ex-chancellor is getting? It looks like more bribe than a salary. And when was he bribed, before or after????????? These are the ties with Russian Gas.
Congratulations.
And in general I guess you have big problems in europe, you yourself hate your own creation and everything yours.
Russians love everything theirs, even bad.
You really have to be tought lessons by them.
Who knows, maybe you will live better with russia. Let's wait, they won't take or think long.
Complain about this comment
To 61, Neoacid,
who cares here for all you are writing. do you read what are they thinking about? worm houses, fat food, and all the comfort their governments gave them. but they still don't like what they have . I don't understand do they want more like russians or they want the same but not less.
nobody here cares for truth. and because of this the truth will be severe to everyone.
show me who is your friend and I will tell you who you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Surely the Baltic States and Poland and the Ukraine are now at risk from Russia.
Mark has previously reported on a European Army. Where is it now? I have not heard or read of it being mentioned in the current situation.
I hope it is preparing to defend the above mentioned countries.
Complain about this comment
I can see from the pro-Russian commentators on this Blog that the one comment that rally riles them is my drawing a parallel between the German domination and then annexation of Czechoslovakia 1938 and the Russian domination of Georgia and the potential for annexation of parts if not all of Georgia in the next few months.
If there is a guarantee of knowing when one hits the nail on the head, one only has to see the discomfort of the pro-Russian commentators who try to use the terms misinterpretation, misleading or even try to revise the history of 1938 to evade the simple truth that Russia has invaded Georgia for pre-planned reasons, is trying to bully the Georgians into changing the government of Georgia which is anti-Russian (as if that were a crime!) and has systematically destroyed the infrastructure of Georgia to seek to achieve the annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (even though the Georgians never mounted an assault upon Abkhazia).
This 19th Century and very Neanderthal behaviour of the Russians is neither acceptable in the 21st Century nor must it be allowed to succeed.
That is why I welcome the plan for $1 billion dollars in US aid be donated to Georgia, the beefing up of on-the-ground OSCE and EU monitors and applaud the EU for castigating Russia's recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia which not even the tame nation of Belarus has sought to avoid doing in support of it's master!
It must be very lonely being Russian and having no international friends or support but then that is the price to be paid for being a bully and not acting within a UN approved mandate!
Complain about this comment
#64 "Everyone knows that Georgia started the "war". They had been trained for six years "to NATO standards"
Well clearly they hadn't because they got the hell kicked out of them in a couple of days by less than a brigade of Russians (an army that is itself well below NATO standard).
The Georgian army is equipped with Iraqi army standard mid-1980's soviet kit. Ex Ukranian army T-72's are hardly Challenger or M1A1 Abrhams are they?
They may have had Israeli army trainers, but frankly more fool Georgia... the Israeli army didn't exactly distinguish itself in Lebanon did it? Equally much as the anti-semites that fill this board claim otherwise the only material aid they've recieved from Israel is 20 ex-US army Barret sniper rifles. The IRA had those.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @69,
As a British taxpayer I resent my taxes being used to contribute to the €1 Billion the EU is wasting on Georgia.
As usual, no one asked for our consent for this 'donation'.
Complain about this comment
18 * Last time round, over 2/3 wanted to stay in the EU. At the worst, let's have another referendum, but as a nation, our inability to do anything constructive on the European stage is getting ridiculous.
Correction, they voted to remain in the EEC, the European Economic Community.
That is what I think many British folks feel galled about; they were sold membership of a a trade federation and ended up in a body which is able to pass laws which, in some cases, trump those of their directly elected officials.
Complain about this comment
71. As a British taxpayer I resent my taxes being used to contribute to the ?1 Billion the EU is wasting on Georgia.
Except it is from the US not the EU. As an American taxpayer I am very happy for the money to be sent to Georgia.
Complain about this comment
Schwerpunkt @73,
I stand corrected! (mea culpa)
If you're willing to pick up all the EU's other generous gestures I'd be even more delighted.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @ 69
"Russia has invaded Georgia for pre-planned reasons"
I can not rightly say if the military action was preplanned or not, as without confirmation by Moscow that will remain a speculation only. As for some people saying that Russia had so many tanks etc available the simple fact is that the Russian region in which they are stationed and which borders Georgia is very unstable (Chechnya/Ingushetia/Dagestan/Kabardino-Balkaria) as recent history has shown and thus Moscow is forced to keep a large military contingent there to try and prevent the sudden flare up of hostilities within Russian borders. Those tanks are stationed there at all times and, well, as they are only a short distance away from the Georgian border it was quite logical to use them in the conflict.
"is trying to bully the Georgians into changing the government of Georgia"
Answer me honestly: will you continue to recognise the Russian president as such and continue to hold amiable talks with him if Russia, say, hypothetically, invaded UK and then lost the subsequent war, or will you try to depose him and arrest him to try in a war crimes tribunal calling for a change in Russian government?
"which is anti-Russian (as if that were a crime!)"
These days I get the impression that having an anti-American government is actually a crime. Just my thoughts.
"has systematically destroyed the infrastructure of Georgia"
Can you give me the proof of that? From what I see is that the Georgian infrastructure is perfectly safe and sound, aside from a few military bases and assets. Compare this to NATO bombings of Serbia not long ago.
"seek to achieve the annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia"
Hmm... Well, I guess you will never believe me nor the Russian president when he says that we are not planning to do that. And, of course, you don't believe the Abkhazian president when he says that his country doesn't want to join Russia at all.
"This 19th Century and very Neanderthal behaviour of the Russians is neither acceptable in the 21st Century nor must it be allowed to succeed."
Unlike the 19th Century and very Neanderthal behaviour of the Americans?
"That is why I welcome the plan for $1 billion dollars in US aid be donated to Georgia"
Well, what you do with your money is your concern.
Named-Erion @ 62
"president Medvedev said that Russia wants a world without America."
He never said that. What he said was that he doesn't want a world dominated by a single country.
"America is without doubt the bigest factor for preservation of peace in the world."
I am very sorry, but I don't believe this at all with all the action in Iraq and Afganistan, as well as those threats at Iran.
"Never in the history has there been more free people then under the little American history,never has there been more prosperity,more compassion,more humanism."
All our opinions are subjective and we mostly choose to see only what we want to see, so there is no point in arguing this.
"a country that has seen the most extreme ideologies,the most brutal human right abuses coming out of it."
I can say the same about the US.
"Look at the Putins language"
That's for domestic audience, which, sadly, buys it.
"Russia did invade a sovereign country,Russia is still inside that country"
Iraq and Afghanistan ring any bells?
"America and the west have never embarked on military intervantions without consulting Allies,without U.N resolutions,or broad international consenssus."
Hmm... Never say never, as they say.
"Russia's actions in invading Georgia was unnilateral,without any legal basis,without Allies consultation,without U.N mandate."
FYI: Russia went to UN Security Council when Georgia invaded SO and demanded a resolution that would call for Georgia to stop the aggression, which, was, of course, vetoed by US and UK. Also, the Russian peacekeepers who were in the region had an international CIS mandate confirmed by UN, which was set up as far back as early 90s.
"Russia is telling the world You dare not Teach us,You dare not touch us."
Of course we do when the US and NATO are saying one thing, doing another, invading sovereign states with false accusations - quite simply, we don't trust you anymore.
P.S: The world doesn't end with US and Europe.
Complain about this comment
“14. At 2:36pm on 02 Sep 2008, threnodio wrote:
To view this objectively, we need to dispose of some entirely false and frankly spurious presuppositions. It is not the case that the EU has a foreign policy.”
Isn’t it? Then why does the Con-trick-stitutaion and subsequent Treaty provide for an ‘EU Foreign Minister,’ and consular representation. Will this person have no views or policies?
“18. At 3:25pm on 02 Sep 2008, hrcolyer wrote:
Ironic, isn't it? EU membership is the only referendum in UK history put to the whole electorate (1975). Our elected representatives take part in nominating commissioners, and the EU parliament is directly elected.
And yet they still lack a mandate.
I'm not sick of the EU, or of the unbalanced nature of BBC reporting, just of the unbalanced people writing comments about how evil the EU is, and posturing as if they were heroes/liberal martyrs/representative of some overwhelming majority*.
* Last time round, over 2/3 wanted to stay in the EU. At the worst, let's have another referendum, but as a nation, our inability to do anything constructive on the European stage is getting ridiculous.”
Yes, the referendum (1975) asking people’s permission to join the Common Market in 1973, during which the Prime Minister lied, and lied, and lied again, promising that no further political integration would occur. He subsequently admitted he knew at the time that this was a blatant lie, to fool the plebs into endorsing the continued membership of the EEC.
Since the referendum was grossly late and conducted with even more gross dishonesty, I would not accept that as a mandate for anything.
Yes - Let us have another referendum, and then let the Euro-Nazis be honest for the first time in their corrupt little lives.
Let them admit what their true plans are. Let them state their goals and timetable for achieving them.
Let them discuss the democratic deficit and the economic incompetence. Let them explain why the accounts of the EU have never been signed off due to rampant, systematic fraud.
Let them tell the truth about how powerless EU Mp’s truly are.
Let us vote again, and for the first time in the history of the EU, let us be honestly told what we are voting for.
Complain about this comment
ISeeAll @ #75
5 hours to respond to the Georgian assault upon its own territory with 150 tanks that also requires the mobilisation of approximately 1000 wheeled/motorised transports and sufficient troops to perform the rout of the Georgian forces is what I would call amazing unless those troops, tanks and vehicles were already mobilised and prepared to invade Georgia.
Russia is damned by your own words. You suggest that Russian troops need to be ready and available to put down insurgency in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan or Kabardino-Balkaria. Was that not exactly what Georgian troops were doing in South Ossetia and which the Russian denounced and gave as their reason for invading Georgia?
Only two days ago, 1000 protesters in Ingushetia were beaten and bullied by fresh Russian troops brought into that region . . . . . what is denounced as tantamount to a war crime in South Ossetia is permissible and justifiable, according to Russia, in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan or Kabardino-Balkaria by Russian Troops?
As for South Ossetians and Abkhazians being given Russian Passports? Is that not the same as annexation?
You make me laugh with your protestation that it okay for Russia to demand a change of Georgian Government by defeating the Georgian Military! Damned again by your own words - you are justifying Russia seeking to change the Government of a free and sovereign State simply because you suggest that because Georgia has lost "the war" it is alright to seek regime change. Arrant nonsense and just words that seek to justify the aggressive nature of the Russian invasion of Georgia!
If your acceptance for Russia invading Georgia being justified because, in your opinion, The US is also acting in a 19th Century and Neanderthal way when it comes to, dare I say Afghanistan or Iraq, may I just point out that the Russian Invasion of Georgia was not done with the mandate of the United Nations.
At least the US does operate within the mandate of the UN even if the people of the world do not like their actions. But, in any case, calling the kettle black is no excuse for the pot to unilaterally invade another sovereign nation with the flimsy excuse of "protecting its citizens" when you now suggest that Abkhazia does not want to be a part of Russia.
Russia cannot have it both ways - it was either defending Abkhazia and South Ossetia because it was protecting it's Russian citizens (i.e. annexing those enclaves having created Russian Citizens through the issue of passports) or it was invading Georgian Territory because Georgia was subduing an armed insurgency and Russia wants to dominate Georgia - just as Russia has done in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan and Kabardino-Balkaria.
I feel you protest the innocence of Russia too much.
Russia is behaving like a bully and trying to dominate it's "near-abroad" countries in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus . . . .
You may wish to protect the good name of the Russian people but the Russian Government's behaviour is that of being a bully and bullies should be ostracised and isolated until they recognise that we now live in a global world and "spheres of influence" are an anachronism of the 19th Century and a Stalinist/KGB ideology.
Complain about this comment
"Russia has invaded Georgia for pre-planned reasons"
"I can not rightly say if the military action was preplanned or not, as without confirmation by Moscow that will remain a speculation only"
I can. I served in an armoured unit and know exactly how much effort was needed to prepare our 5 squadrons of tanks (16 tanks per squadron) for a 2 week excercise on Sailsbury plain. We spent months changing tracks, engines etc and we needed 10 wheeled vehicles to support each tracked one. Watching the russian tanks its clear to see that each one has been fitted with brand new tracks and all the wheeled vehicles clearly have new tyres.
Russia was shooting down Georgian drones months ago so could have been preparing these tanks for battle in June.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @ 77
"5 hours to respond to the Georgian assault upon its own territory"
It was more like 15 or so hours of confusion/disbelief/indecision, which, of course, doesn't make that much of a difference, I admit.
"You suggest that Russian troops need to be ready and available to put down insurgency in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan or Kabardino-Balkaria."
That is true. And that is why as a Russian I am against that on a fundamental level - although I can clearly see what will the recognition of independence of these regions do to Russia and the world as a whole (do you want about 80 different new states on a world map with 1/3 of them having nuclear weapons and about a quarter of them being moderate to extreme fundamental muslim states?), so I have no choice but to support that.
"Only two days ago, 1000 protesters in Ingushetia were beaten and bullied by fresh Russian troops brought into that region . . ."
You can't believe how saddened I am by this as this creates even more instability in the region - I do know first hand that our government can be real stupid at times, although sometimes it is not the federal centre that is responsible for everything going on inside Russia.
"What is denounced as tantamount to a war crime in South Ossetia is permissible and justifiable, according to Russia, in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan or Kabardino-Balkaria by Russian Troops?"
That's the result of an "eye for an eye" and "blood vengeance" principle which is prevalent in the Caucasus - the only thing that stops it from escalating further is the Russian military there. I am not saying their actions are all so good and benign, I am just saying that in this situation it is the lesser of two evils.
"As for South Ossetians and Abkhazians being given Russian Passports? Is that not the same as annexation?"
Every citizen of the former Soviet Union had a fundamental right to choose what passport they wanted - be it Ukrainian, Georgian, Russian or of any other former Soviet repulbics' (except the Baltics). That was the case until 2002 when Russia finally adopted the citizenship act that stopped that from happening or at least made it more difficult. The choice of Russian passports was made by the people of A/SO themselves, as at the time (and now too, actually), Russia offered superior social care to anything Georgia had to offer (higher pention rates/free education/healthcare etc), the factor which was of paramount importance to people just out of the war in early 90's with no employment, prospects for the future etc. What would you have chosen in this case?
"You make me laugh with your protestation that it okay for Russia to demand a change of Georgian Government by defeating the Georgian Military!"
That might not be right but that is what always happens at the end of any war. Recent examples - the end of the NATO offensive in Serbia - Milosevic down, Iraq - Saddam out etc etc. You can't change the nature of a man overnight, so this will continue to happen for a long time still.
"simply because you suggest that because Georgia has lost "the war" it is alright to seek regime change."
It is not right, but that is how the world works these days (and at any time in the past with very few and rare exceptions which I can't think of any). Btw, I didn't suggest it was right, I just asked - what would you do in our place?
"aggressive nature of the Russian invasion of Georgia!"
You call it invasion, we call it peacekeeping. You call it agressive, we call it necessary. To each his own, I guess.
"May I just point out that the Russian Invasion of Georgia was not done with the mandate of the United Nations."
Just like Iraq and Serbia invasions/bombings were done without UN mandate.
"At least the US does operate within the mandate of the UN even if the people of the world do not like their actions."
See the above.
"With the flimsy excuse of "protecting its citizens".
I wonder if US would invade, say, Iran, if, say 60 US citizens were killed in cold blood by the government there? Will it call that a "flimsy excuse" then?
"It was either defending Abkhazia and South Ossetia because it was protecting it's Russian citizens (i.e. annexing those enclaves having created Russian Citizens through the issue of passports)."
What if it just wanted to stop Georgia from killing innocent people and to let those people realise their right of self-determination?
"I feel you protest the innocence of Russia too much."
I didn't say that Russia was innocent, far from it. It is guilty as any other involved country. But I do feel that the moral high ground is with us on this, even though the means used were not right.
"Russia is behaving like a bully and trying to dominate it's "near-abroad" countries in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus . . ."
Just like another certain big country is behaving towards some of its neighbours and even countries that are thousands of miles away from it.
"The Russian Government's behaviour is that of being a bully and bullies should be ostracised and isolated until they recognise that we now live in a global world and "spheres of influence" are an anachronism of the 19th Century and a Stalinist/KGB ideology."
I would be happy to get rid of our government and go protesting or start a revolution as soon as the US and the West take these principles to the heart and start adhering to them by not declaring the Caucauses and other parts of the world as their "national interest zone" etc etc.
Peter_Sym @ 78
"I can."
As I said earlier, Russian military just has to be on constant alert in that region...
Complain about this comment
As ever the usual suspects who normally accuse the EU of doing too much, now accuse it of doing too little.
As George Orwell famously said - "Some things are true, even if the Daily Telegraph says they are true"
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym @ 78
"I can."
As I said earlier, Russian military just has to be on constant alert in that region...
Which is impossible. Armoured vehicles are very unreliable and maintenance heavy. You can't be using them and also maintain them in perfect condition. Those tanks all had brand new tracks... the black paint hadn't even worn off them.
While I can fully accept that the Russians are ready to respond to trouble in that region those tanks weren't tanks that had seem action recently. Simply to load 150 armoured vehicles onto tank transporters and drive them to their depolyment point would have taken days, not 5 hours.
My regiment had scimitar AFV's (only 7 ton tanks) pre-positioned in west germany and had the soviets started moving west we would have needed 48 hours to fully mobilise and we were the recon element of the allied rapid reaction force! Just look how long the allies spent preparing and building up their forces for the gulf war. It was months not hours.
Complain about this comment
Honestly, EU today as a mess. EU made a big mistake by accepting Baltic states in EU. All what these countries like Poland and Latvia need is more money from EU, as their governments are too corrupted to do something to make the things better. They are screaming their heads off that Russia wants to attack them, plying this "card" to enter into the world organizations. The same now for Ukraine and Georgia! Ready to do everything just to get attention and more money from european pockets. I would prefer that money to be sent to Haiti or India, where it is needed, rather than support greedy needs of some dirty politicians.
I belive Russia could be a good partner, if only EU had a clear mind!
Complain about this comment
It looks like there is trouble stirring in the Ukraine already. Coincidence? Or is it some new form of Russian Blitzkrieg? lf this happens, let's see how the pro Russian supporters and some of the West Europeans justify this one.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
ISeeAll @#79
The title of this Blog entry is "EU through rose-tinted glasses?"
I am sorry to say for every point I made in #77 you seem to want to respond with an excuse for Russia. I would suggest that you are viewing the actions of your Government through rose-tinted spectacles?
Russia has no right in international law nor on moral grounds to invade Georgia. The excuse of 'protecting' Russian Citizens is an excuse no more, no less and not a right. Russian Citizens and passport holders can always go to Russia!
It was suggested in an earlier comment that the UK and US vetoed Russia from UN mandate to invade Georgia. In fact no vetoes were exercised and the 15 member UN Security Council simply could not agree to give Russia that posts-invasion mandate - simply because it was a pre-planned invasion and the Casus Belli claimed by Russia was so flimsy.
I don't know where you get your 15 hours of delay/disbelief and confusion from? The Russian invasion commenced with 5 hours of the first Georgian GRAD Launchers being released but in any event the speed of mobilisation just simply indicates that Russia had always intended to invade Georgia and just needed an excuse to do so. Thieves and Bullies always lie and become deceitful when caught with their fingers in the till or when they are caught beating up on their victims.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia are insurgent Georgian enclaves and Russia giving the Georgian Citizens of those enclaves passports does not make those Georgian citizens Russian unless Russia always had the intent to annexe the populations of those enclave into Russia? I happen to believe that was exactly what Russia has intended to do all along and that the invasion of Georgia was premeditated and has been planned for a long time in advance.
You can excuse Russia as much as you like but Russia has behaved badly and continues to do so as it is ignoring it's responsibilities to withdraw it's troops to their start lines (i.e withdraw all troops back into Russia where they came from) in accordance with the EU-brokered six-point plan signed by Medvedev on behalf of Russia.
Russia is undoubtedly hoping to achieve a regime change in Georgia by squatting in Georgia proper and by doing so is behaving like a bully.
You and your fellow Russians can claim that Russia is only doing what it does because of precedent but that does not make Russia right and, in fact, Russia’s recent actions now strips Russia of any principles or right to claim to the moral high ground.
You claim that the US and the West have declared the Caucauses and other parts of the world as their "national interest zone" etc etc.. Where is there evidence of any such statements from the US and the West? Offering financial and technical support to Georgia or the Ukraine or Azerbaijan is not declaring national interest zones – it is an act of friendship and support.
If Georgia and the Ukraine were considered suitable candidates and offered acceptance of bids to join NATO or the EU that is simply those countries freely choosing their own destiny. Russia has no right to interfere in the sovereign choices of those free countries - to do so is just Russia continuing along the path of being a dominating and aggressive bully nation!
Russia has no rights to unilaterally dictate the governments and political persuasions of any countries that make up its "near-abroad" and, if that does mean that 80 new countries are created along ethnic lines, then so be it - the Ukraine gave up it's nuclear arsenal to Russia peacefully . . . . there is no reason why the 80 new former Russian-vassal states cannot do the same.
Complain about this comment
Dear all,
When we will learn history.
UK wants Russia out of Cacuses for centuries what is nothing new, so I am not surprised with all this histeria in the British press. They simply cannot be objective.
However, I have a different point to make. Why Britain thinks what the rest of the Europe is to help it to achieve dominance on the World arena?
"We need sanctions against Russia" -- it says. Fine introduce it. UK has 300000 Russian community in London with substaintial property interests, but why should rest of EU follow the suit?
I am EU citizen and one day I woke up to discover what Russians are upon us. What a noncense? From BBC I learned what Russia attacked a small republic of Georgia, which is a close american friend and run by an ex-New York lawyer. (for Americans I am not talking about a state of Georgia) Personally, I do not care. According to this article I should be angry on Russia and support sanctions, because I am a European and British prime minister says so. Moreover, I should be afraid to deal business with Russia. What is not convincing, sorry Brown. Russia is a Clandaike of our days. You can earn more money in a day than in lifetime. For my business if British were to quite Russia only the better, unfortunatelly, there is little sign of it.
Complain about this comment
#84
I see no need in saying anything else! Those countries are corrupted, its a fact! And sorry if it hearts you they are, as you said "beggars"! I haven't forgotten that russians are poorer, but there is the difference - they are not "beggars"!
p.s. and yes, my english isn't very good, but that's why I'm going back to school!
Complain about this comment
Roman1979 @86
Actually Gordon Brown for the UK only asked (and got) the Council of Ministers to put a delay on the negotiations with Russia for the EU-Russia Partnership Pact.
The EU Council of Ministers have categorically castigated Russia for unilaterally recognising the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as was Gordon Brown's line of thought in The Observer last Sunday.
It was the French Foreign Minister who promoted the idea of the EU imposing Sanctions on Russia and not the UK. At the Council of Minister Extraordinary meeting no EU Member State apparently requested Sanctions?
Personally, I have never had faith in Sanctions and would much rather roll up my sleeves and get the fight over and done with!
If you are one of the 300,000 Russian émigrés in London you are welcome to your property portfolio. Phew! I am glad I am not a property magnate in the UK. You must be getting less rich by the minute! LOL
Frankly, I do not know where you get the idea that the UK wants to dominate the world. The British are far more realistic than that outdated idea but there does remain a vestige of the British talent for recognising when an Aggressor Nation starts to flex its muscles and tries to dominate fledgling democracies and influence the sovereignty of nations within its supposed "Sphere of Influence".
The British do recognise that this is such an outdated and barbaric 19th Century mindset that someone has to denounce that attitude and say it has no place in today's modern 21st Century Global society!
As it happens all the other 26 EU nations also feel that Russia has been the bad guy in the Russian Georgia conflict and have put the onus on Russia to step back from further/continued aggression . . . . I can only hope that the Russian recognise this as an opportunity and do not continue to be aggressive and threatening towards their neighbouring and, definitely very free, countries bordering Russia - in particular Georgia.
At the moment, sadly, it seems not to be the case with Russia escalating the war of words with the USA as of today.
I remain pessimistic that this will not eventually have to become a fight.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym @ 81
"Which is impossible."
I don't have enough experience (exactly zero, to be precise) with armoured vehicles, so I believe you.
"Those tanks all had brand new tracks... the black paint hadn't even worn off them."
Although I was under the impression that those were the old 52nd army tanks that were used in SO.
Menedemus @ 85
"I would suggest that you are viewing the actions of your Government through rose-tinted spectacles?"
To this I might suggest that you are viewing the actions of my Government through "sludge-green spectacles" as U11662441 put it @ 27? *smile*.
"Russia has no right in international law nor on moral grounds to invade Georgia."
That is absolutely true. However, I claim that we have the moral high ground because we did actually do something when innocent civilians were being killed, and not just passively stood buy waiting for them all to be slaughtered, as some would have wanted us to. That is why I feel the way I feel, not because we invaded Georgia.
"The excuse of 'protecting' Russian Citizens is an excuse no more"
It might be just an excuse, but, nevertheless, it stopped the Georgian offensive in SO.
"Russian Citizens and passport holders can always go to Russia!"
In the real world things are not that simple, unfortunately.
"It was suggested in an earlier comment that the UK and US vetoed Russia from UN mandate to invade Georgia."
Russia didn't ask for a mandate to invade Georgia. It asked for the international condemnation of Georgia's actions in SO and a call for immediate withdrawal of Georgian troops from SO.
"I don't know where you get your 15 hours of delay/disbelief and confusion from?"
From the chronicles of war - the reports by Georgian press that Russia went into SO earlier than it did (in 5 hours that is, that is at around 5am on 8 August) are false, as Russian troops only started crossing the tunnel at around 15:00 hours on 8 August as evidenced by local population in border areas, and I tend to believe them more than any news reports.
"Russia had always intended to invade Georgia and just needed an excuse to do so."
See my earlier comment about the "sludge-green spectacles". Please do not try to use absolute terms especially in the absence of hard cold facts.
"Thieves and Bullies always lie and become deceitful when caught with their fingers in the till or when they are caught beating up on their victims."
Just like a certain power across the ocean.
"South Ossetia and Abkhazia are insurgent Georgian enclaves and Russia giving the Georgian Citizens of those enclaves passports does not make those Georgian citizens Russian"
Except for the fact that their right of determining their citizenship was agreed upon at the dissolution of the USSR by all the CIS countries, Georgia included. And, quite frankly, Georgia wasn't as willing to give out Georgian passports to those so called "Georgian citizens".
"I happen to believe that was exactly what Russia has intended to do all along"
This is your subjective viewpoint which I happen not to agree with.
"You can excuse Russia as much as you like but Russia has behaved badly and continues to do so"
I agree that Russia behaved badly. I was and still am against such use of force by my country and I am very much against the recognition of SO/Abkhazia, but I still feel that in this conflict we had all the right reasons, even though we went about doing it in a wrong way.
"as it is ignoring it's responsibilities to withdraw it's troops to their start lines"
The Russian General Staff announced yesterday that it had withdrawn all Russian forces back to their previous location sites with the exception of 500 peacekeepers (I got no idea who those peacekeepers are or where they are).
"Russia is undoubtedly hoping to achieve a regime change in Georgia"
You know what, in this I am with Medvedev - just looking at photos and videos of Saakashvili makes me mad.
"You and your fellow Russians can claim that Russia is only doing what it does because of precedent but that does not make Russia right"
You are perfectly right in this. My view is that we should have risen above all of that and resolved the situation in a peaceful way, instead of sinking to the level of US and its NATO allies. Now we are no better than them. Sad.
"Russia has no rights to unilaterally dictate the governments and political persuasions
of any countries that make up its "near-abroad"
Only the US/NATO have that right, you mean?
"There is no reason why the 80 new former Russian-vassal states cannot do the same."
I highly doubt that will be the case. If you lived in Russia and seen some signs of resurgent nationalism from all the ethnic groups there, you wouldn't have said this.
Complain about this comment
littleMademoiselle @87
I understand that the EU have suspended EU Grants for Bulgaria due to Bulgaria taking insufficient action to end corrupt practices in that former East European Country but I am not sure that you are correct to denounce all of former Eastern European nations that have joined the EU.
Of course, if you have the links for any articles that I may read to demonstrate the alleged corruption of Poland, the Balkan EU nations or the Baltic EU States I would be pleased to read such articles.
There is no doubting the fact that the former soviet-bloc nations all see benefits in joining the EU not least of all that the EU's purpose is socialist and the planned redistribution of wealth does seem to work. However, I am not sure that the Eastern Europeans joining the EU to gain benefit is such a bad thing?
It would also be true to say that since the East European nations have joined the EU they have actively been better Europeans than the countries that simply pay lip-service to EU regulations such as France, Italy, Germany and Spain who have a very laissez-faire attitude to which EU rules they shall obey and the EU itself which has yet to ever have its annual budget audit signed off as correct!
If you really want to complain about a country that takes advantage of the EU you have to look no further than France who receives inordinately far bigger share of the EU Grant System through the Common Agricultural Policy payment scheme and would be very much the less well off if the CAP is ever properly reviewed and rebalanced to reflect the reality of the economies of the nations that make up the EU.
Complain about this comment
Thank you, Mark Mardell, for your blog and thank you all the commentors for your posts. Where else could we see these spectacularly different viewpoints? Anyway, now I can understand why our (EU and Russian) politicians find it so difficult to come to a common ground.
As for the business, here is what I've concluded from the discussion above.
Westeners
* are frightened with Russia
* do not believe Russia
* are brainwashed by wonderfully unanimous voice of Western media
Russian
* feel indifferent about Western threats
* do not trust West
* are brainwashed by traditionally unanimous voice of Russian media
Everybody
* fails to find anything in common with his opponent
* from time to time feels belligerent
Is there anything Western and Russian people agree upon?
Complain about this comment
NordicPerson at @91
As Sting wrote and sang the words to his fabulous song "Russians" he suggested that "the Russians love their children too."
I am sure they do as we love our children too.
If we all could think of our children and did not rush to violence or cause others to rush to violence or react with violence whatever the violent provocation . . . all our children could grow up in peace and harmony.
I doubt that many would disagree with that - unfortunately the words are easy; the deeds more difficult to abide by.
Complain about this comment
... another way to look at it is to make sure that your children do not live in a country "under a Russian boot". Believe me it is not fun.
The Westerners and Russians... and where does Eastern Europe fit here? In a sphere of influence?
There maybe some similarities here at a very basic level between the Russians and the West, but there are differences too. For example, the US looks for partners and allies to extend its influence, Russia looks for subjects and lands to dominate and conquer.
We can get maudlin, but I'd rather stay focused on the problem at hand and stick to reality. Loving your children is good, but you should also take responsibility and make good decisions for their future, and not restart your country's imperial ambitions as the Russians have done.
Complain about this comment
Another example of the media being generally anti-Russian. Does anybody recall the collision between two planes (UAE cargo plane with British pilot + Russian passenger plane) over Switzerland? The western media immediately blamed the Russians but then it subsequently turned out the Swiss air-traffic controller(s) were to blame.
When did this situation arise? Generally Britain has been friendly with Russia for the last 500 years or so and today's Russia has more in common with that of 100 years ago than it does with the USSR. Often people compare Putin to a Tzar; well the Russians had much better relations with Britain during the Tzarist era than during the Soviet era.. it's time to have a rethink. Or maybe the hostility is caused by the lack of any threat to Britain from France or Germany which is suppose is a new thing. Hmm.
Complain about this comment
@Menedemus
You are welcome to go and fight against Russia. But don't expect me to join you.
I'd only fight for my own country, and in any conflict between the EU and Russia, I'd rather join the Russians as a mercenary (as if they'd need me...) than shed even a drop of blood to defend the anti-democratic EU. At least the Russians don't pretend.
In a way, maybe we can ask the Russians to help us restore democracy in Europe by invading, advancing to Brussels and then level all EU buildings (preferably with EU bureaucrats and politicians still in them).
More and more people are starting to question the anti-democratic nature of the EU, and if nothing serious is done (reform won't do, radical measures are called for) then the EU well risks a real crisis, namely not a legitimacy crisis, but an existance crisis.
No popular sovereignty and no real democracy equals no support for the EU. Popular sovereignty and democracy first, everything else later.
Complain about this comment
#95, mcdv-1975, with the EU one sees globalization
in the microcosm of Europe.
But, apparently, east of a certain longitude in
Europe, all of the paperwork of a referendum
is dispensed with and instead tanks are used.
Complain about this comment
The EU caved in to Russia just the way it caved in to Germany in 1938. Who does anyone think they are kidding?
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, # 92 Your comments are very intresting for me - regarding them as whole; esepcially this one from "the cusp of history" is something that suit me. I'd like to know where are your from? Best regards, [Personal details removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
# 75 ISeeAll
In response to your comment (below)
"(Chechnya/Ingushetia/Dagestan/Kabardino-Balkaria) as recent history has shown and thus Moscow is forced to keep a large military contingent there to try and prevent the sudden flare up of hostilities within Russian borders"
Are you saying that all is not peaceful and harmonious in Russia? They need tanks and troops to keep their citizens in line? Or perhaps, there are some sections of Russia that still don't appreciate being Russian?
What would happen those citizens suddenly had US or European (member state) passports? By Russia's own argument, the US or the EU would then be perfectly justified in protecting their "citizens" against oppression by sending in troops..oops I mean "peacekeepers".
Complain about this comment
The Russians are not fools. They will make a political risk-assessment before engaging in any action such as invading Georgia. Russia calculated that there would be international protest over this action, but not a great deal (particularly if Georgia hardly comes out of this affair smelling like roses). Also it does the Russian Government no harm at all in the eyes of its people if it is seen to stand up to international criticism.
However, if Russia were to invade Poland, the Baltic States or any of the EU/NATO members (as some of the wilder elements on this forum suggest or even advocate) then clearly the military/economic consequences would be such that Russia could never win in the long term. They know this, and this will put a limit on their ambitions.
Complain about this comment
Guns good news! Northrop Grumman have announced that by the end of the year they will have a first weapons grade laser at 100 KW, practical to use for extended periods of time. The tech is expected to advance in power with time.
What is the point?
The point is that a laser like this would be perfect for shooting down missiles in flight, probably at a very large distance. There would be no problems with interceptor missiles having to chase a Russian nuke, and possibly miss it. A single laser could retarget and shoot down multiple nukes, and keep on doing it for a while. With a set of these, possibly no Russian missile could get through.
THIS technology is what can remove the Russian nuclear "deterant", and NOT the limited 10 interceptor missile shield in Poland! Though at this point I hope Poland gets a few of these lasers in the near future... even if they are run and operated by US troops... while the Russians can keep on flying their propeller based and antiquated strategic bombers... and perhaps when one gets too close it can be lasered.
Complain about this comment
IanTownhill, you are more or less correct about the current practicalities for the Russians of taking on any NATO or EU member.
However, when you start looking at the longer term, if Russia is allowed to reaquire territory and influence, rebuild the military, at some point it may try to attack even Poland or the Baltics, or others in its former sphere of influence. I do not think a lot of Europeans would be willing to fight against a more powerful Russia, to die for Poland (or substitute others singly or in groups here) they hardly know, a country which has provoked Russia and is responsible for its own troubles. Why risk getting your own children nuked? The excuses and reasons for appeasment would start flowing, diplomats would suggest negotiations and compromise, etc... while Poland would get pressured with threats and actions back into the Russian sphere.
The point is that as soon as Russia is seen moving in the wrong direction, it should be opposed, not by being attacked, but by other lesser pressures which can work early in a conflict. Just so in the long run it does not become a more serious threat.
Complain about this comment
101, Rob_Hob, it probably wouldn't be useful
for that purpose. The Northrop Grumman lasers
are probably intended for use in the airborne laser.
I'm sure the Russians know all about the system
and its limitations. It is not capable of destroying
their missiles because it has to be within a few
hundred miles of their launch sites.
It's intended to be used against Iranian and
N. Korean missiles, because we can fly up
near their launch sites.
These lasers definitely cannot destroy incoming
warheads in the reentry phase, at least as
far as I know.
If Poland or anybody else feels threatened,
then they are going to have to request
mobile ground-based missiles with nuclear
warheads like the Pershing II's that we sent
to West Germany when they were under threat.
Complain about this comment
#101 "the Russians can keep on flying their propeller based and antiquated strategic bombers... and perhaps when one gets too close it can be lasered."
You are presumably talking about the TU-95 bear. Its got propellers but that doesn't stop it hunting US subs very effectively. The weapons in its bombbay aren't 50 year old.
Remember the mainstay of the US bomber fleet is still the B52 and thats a 50 year old+ design too. Don't knock soviet era kit... it might be simple, but its stong, easy to use and very effective. The AK47 was made in 1947 but is still one of the worlds best assault weapons and will keep working long after a fancy western weapon has jammed solid.
Complain about this comment
Guns my experience leans more towards science, I do not know the exatc specs of these... as if LOL However, from what you say, the range is not a problem, a few hundred miles if fine. You just set up a network of them, even ground based. The problem seems to be targeting them to a fast moving object, and while that is technically complicated, I hope this detail gets worked out not too far in the future.
I'd prefer not to have nuclear missiles in Poland or anywhere else if other options exist... though it may well come to that.
Hopefully in the end, with a fast tracking laser, nuclear missiles become obsolete, that would benefit everybody, even the Russians in the end... all we would have left to worry about would be nutcases with suitcase nukes.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym, partly true, but it has to be pointed out that the B52 has upgrades and modifications in most systems to bring them up to date. Nothing wrong with that. Don't know about the Russian planes.
As for the AK47, I know, so easy to take apart that even a novice can do it. No harder than lego. A good application of the KISS principle, "Keep It Simple Stupid". Yes, Russians have the capacity to make good stuff, my point is that their military is technologically behind the West.
Complain about this comment
#105, Rob_Hob, the reason why the ABL can
be effective against missiles in their launch
phase is that they are extremely vulnerable at
that time. They are under heavy g-loading, and
all it takes is a small burn to cause a booster
to collapse.
But, destroying a warhead which is in reentry
requires considerably more energy.
Targeting is another issue, and a quite complex
one. The whole problem of warding off a massive
salvo such as the Russians could launch is
simply not doable at this time.
It's much cheaper to maintain a deterrent. That's
why countries like France and the UK have
missile submarines.
But, of course, if we could persuade the Russians
to be a little more reasonable, and to stop supplying
the Iranians with nuclear technology, then we
wouldn't need all of these ugly things.
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR, #9, excellent post; whilst the EU is far from perfect (is there any human construct that is perfect?) it is a fact that “the UK hardly feels like a member state of the EU in many ways” being the ONE and ONLY EU country out of all key pillars of Schengen, the Euro and the Charter of Rights. Yet, when anybody says this, which I frequently do, Eurosceptics get really upset. I wonder why? They should be elated that the UK is just a “half” or “semi-detached” member of their hated EU. But that goes against the grain of their propaganda, i.e. the UK being ruled by a supranational Stalinist regime.
And look at the ‘official’ response at #13 (bad luck indeed…) “The British public DO NOT WANT uncontrolled entry to the UK. Being an island we can more or less control our borders which the rest of Europe cannot. You can't walk round the English Channel.” I wonder if this chap is from NewLab as this is exactly what the government churns out like a scratched record as justification for the opt-out from Schengen. What they conveniently ignore is that there are already several ISLANDS that are members of Schengen: Iceland and Malta are full members and Cyprus is committed to join in a few years. Another island, Ireland, would like to join (and this position has been explicitly stated in protocols to the Schengen Convention and the Lisbon Treaty) but has been ‘forced out’ by the UK’s opt-out.
Besides, there are even Tories who don’t agree with you, Peter_Sym, another example of the Tory party being to the left of NewLab, see below:
“Foreigners be warned – paranoia rules at the British border” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a395ccd4-9fb1-11dc-8031-0000779fd2ac.html
Complain about this comment
#106. With out question Russian kit is behind western technology but not by much.... a good pilot in a Mig 29 or Su 27 is going to be a very serious risk to anything the US has in the air.
Stalin said 'quantity has a quality of its own' and the Russians have a HELL of a lot of quantity. Equally the Tu-95 has had a lot of upgrades and like the B52 it has many admirable qualities: it can fly for nearly 20 hours without refuelling, can carry a huge warload and is very strong and reliable. A laser can easily take out a plastic plane like an F-16 or a missile because even minor damage to electronics make them useless. A big metal russian bomber will take far more punishment. Think of the pics of B-17's flying back from Germany with no tails.
Complain about this comment
#108. No I'm not from 'new Labour' although I voted for them last time.
I also suspect you ignored the reply at the end of your FT article that in continental europe ID cards and a database of all addresses are standard.....
Complain about this comment
well your right there mark the EU only lets us see what it wants us to see. But now the public from all countries are starting to get wise about the EU master plans of surpreme control over member states.within 10-15 years there will be a revolt against this twisted orginatisation.Bring it on
Complain about this comment
The EU is the most dangerous orginsation in the world
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym, “I also suspect you ignored the reply at the end of your FT article that in continental europe ID cards and a database of all addresses are standard.....”
Are you honestly suggesting that there is no database of all addresses in the UK? There are also databases of all people born here, working here, paying taxes here and a long etc.. As for ID cards, anytime you are asked for a "form of ID" in the UK, e.g. from your employer or prospective employer, your bank, the Inland Revenue, etc., this is equivalent to an ID. Is there any difference? In continental Europe ID cards are just that, a card to prove your ID when required. They are not used to "build databases" with lots of personal data as the British government is intending to do. In the UK people use their passports, driving licenses, birth certificates…as ID. People here prefer to have several surrogate ID cards rather than just the one?
In any case, as in the UK you have 25% of the world’s CCTV cameras to monitor less than 1% of the world population anybody who escapes being in a database is already “well covered” by the largest CCTV network per head of population in the world.
I think you are just trying to muddle things in order to distract the attention from your failed "island" alibi.
Complain about this comment
Guns, you know more about this than I do, but wouldn't a ground based laser be more powerful and able to target missile at re-entry? Perhaps such a thing would be too expensive... or perhaps this is all new technology, and these developments will come in the future.
Peter_Sym, Mig 29s are good for a relatively small and poor country like say Poland (maybe better suited than the F16s). As for the numbers the Russians could throw, they are not the Chinese or the Indians. The Russians have neither the economic size or the population to play the numbers game anymore. The size of the Russian economy is similar to the Australian one, both resource based over a large land area, but Australia has far less population... and if anyone suggested that the Aussies should aspire to a world power status, there would be laughter :) I vaguely recall that even Putin has stated in the recent past that Russian doctrine and response will depend on asymmetric technological responses to various threats.
Complain about this comment
'Island alibi'- what on earth is that? i merely pointed out that we CAN secure our borders- France can't so its wasting its time trying. If Iceland chooses open borders then good for it- its called democracy. If the EU force it on them then thats a rather different issue.
As for we have 25% of the worlds CCTV- so what? Its an utterely irrelvant point, especially as most is private (supermarkets, car parks etc).
You might like to think you're Alexander Solteniztyn because you have to show a passport but you're really not.
Complain about this comment
@mcdv-1975 (10)
A disregard for national parliamentary democracy? I see only individuals with pencils in their hands choosing silently and rationaly the officials capable of serving in democracy. I don't see any nation in the act of voting.
A national will? There is no such thing in The Social Contract of J.J.Rouseau. Only individual and general will. Maybe your saying is about the system which actually relates the individuals with theirs government. The election system is not well organized, the state is not yet conceived in the way to be sufficiently democratic, etc. There is still no constitution, as well as no proper implementation of the bill of rights, etc.
The future of citizens of Europe, as we all are fully aware, is a state capable of competing in the world's arena. Nobody is disregaring natural differences, nations, cultures, etc. All of them have to be preserved, but please don't tell me that suchlikes have to remain as a driving force, an idea for the future. Please don't fall into a trap set by our eastern neighbour.
Complain about this comment
to Menedemus @ 90
I shall disagree with you about France taking advantage of EU! France paid to EU approx.140 billions and got back approx.89 billions. That leaves 51 billions margin! And Germany paid even more! And guesss who comes out a winner? Poland which received 65 billions from EU!
Complain about this comment
#114. A laser kills things by heating them up... basically it burns a hole in them and that thing is a plane then the fuel tank catches fire and its killed. Unfortunately a missile warhead is specifically designed to survive re-entry through the earths atmosphere- its got a big heat shield. Trying to knock out a heat shielded war head going Mach 20 or 30 is incredibly hard. Its much easier to blow up the missile early on when its a big, slower moving target filled full of explosive fuel.
In addition with lasers you have major technical problems firing them over long distances. The laser heats the air and distorts the beam. As far as I know that hasn't been overcome adequately yet. Firing from a plane 40,000 feet up helps a lot (much thinner atmosphere) which is I believe Grummans plane, although then the problem is making the laser and its aiming system light enough to fit. Equally an airborne laser platform itself is easier to destroy than a ground based one.
The Russians aren't the Chinese in number but they're prepared to take far more casulaties than we will. 10,000 dead would be nothing to the kremlim but the white house or number 10 would balk at losing that many troops.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym, I can see that you are from the “UK through rose tinted glasses, EU source of all evils” brigade.
Yes, Iceland, chose to join Schengen, as far as I know nobody forced that on the country. 25 EU countries, plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Lietchenstein have *chosen* to join Schengen. The UK is the only EU or EEA country that has refused to join Schengen, forcing Ireland to follow suit. As you say, this is democracy, save for one small detail. Schengen was, among other things, conceived as the final piece in the completion of the so called Single Market: “WHEREAS the Treaty establishing the European Communities, supplemented by the Single European Act, provides that the internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers” (from the preamble to the Schengen Convention).
If my information is correct, the British people agreed to join the Single Market, the then EEC, in a referendum in 1975. In the name of *democracy*, should the British people not have been consulted as well if they wished to *opt out* from one of the key pieces in the jigsaw of the Single Market, i.e. Schengen, a Single Market that the British people voted to *opt in* in 1975?
OK, you are right that it is likely that the result of that referendum would have been a negative to Schengen. But this decision, like the Euro, has been made exclusively by British politicians, *assuming* that this was what their people wanted and, of course, denying the other side (the pro-EU side) the opportunity to make their case in a campaign for any such referendum. Not sure if you can call *that* democracy (I don’t), although I am sure you will, with your “UK through rose tinted glasses” vision. In fact, countries like Denmark and Sweden have a level one lesson in democracy for the UK and other countries: They only opted out of key EU pillars (the Euro) after holding referenda.
Any takers for democracy in “rose-tinted-UK-land”?
Complain about this comment
littleMademoiselle @ 117
I am not sure where you get you figures from? As with previous statement you offer no links or evidence?
There are of course many individual websites that are able to highlight the fraudulent claims for EU Funds that have been made for non-existent projects and why the EU Budget Audit is never, year-on-year, signed off as being correctly itemised and spent wisely.
However, just a simple check of the Wikipedia entry for European Union Statistics will allow people to see the net contributions made by each EU member state to the EU Budget and the amount each country receives but the most telling figures are that France is NOT the largest contributor but at net receipt of EU Budget spend of 12.66% of the EU budget it IS the largest net recipient of EU spending?
Spain comes second being in receipt of 12.09% of the EU spend. Germany as the biggest contributor does come in 3rd at 11.49% of the EU spend.
The UK (although it is the fourth and soon to be the highest populated EU member state) receives a mere 7.78% of the EU spend which is only just higher than Belgium and Greece who contribute a lot less than Germany, France, Italy or the UK.
In reference to your earlier comments regarding corruption of the East European EU member states, it is interesting to note that most of the new Eastern European member states are actually in receipt of very little of the EU Budget spend as individually their receipts are each typically less than 1% of the EU Budget spend except for Poland (the curent fourth largest country in the EU) which receive the huge (I jest!) EU Budget spend of 4.98%.
By my reckoning, the "Old European" countries are in receipt of 40.39% of the EU Budget spend (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Nederlands), The 1973 expansion Countries receive a further 13.2% of the EU Budget spend and the really lucky countries (again I jest!) are the ones who joined in the past few years - they get a massive 46.41% of the EU Budget Spend shared between 19 countries.
Just looking at these percentages of EU Budget spend receipts, France does far too well compared to any other country in the EU and that is entirely down to the benefits of the Common Agricultural Policy which gives French Farmers money for producing more food that the EU needs or even pays them to NOT produce any food at all - I am more that happy to further discuss the CAP and how it is corrupt, inefficient and benefits the founding EEC nations more than any other EU countries but this Blog item is not really about that topic.
Suffice to say I believe the CAP is the major EU budgetary spend item that is so overdue an overhaul that France's persistent and continued reasons for not supporting a repeal of the CAP are a lasting shame on the credibility of the EU. The CAP is the definitive demonstration that domestic popularity is of more importance to “Old Europe” Politicians within the Council of Ministers than the use of the EU Budget to benefit ALL member states within the EU.
A pox on France for being so greedy and selfish!
Complain about this comment
"But this decision, like the Euro, has been made exclusively by British politicians, *assuming* that this was what their people wanted"
Given this is what the EU normally do I don't see why you're concerned. You can certainly hardly complain. certainly the EU commisioner isn't terribly happy about any more people getting a say on Lisbon.
Regarding my personal politics I think free trade is good as it benefits all. I think a common currency is bad as whats right for one economy is probably not right for another and the economies of EU members vary a lot. I support free immigration as long as the immigrant is a net asset to their new home (my Polish dentist springs to mind) however every country should know exactly who is living in their country and secure borders are vital in fighting crime.
Complain about this comment
You reported that the summit was surprisingly tough, did you? So you reported what was in your head.
Why do we need to know?
Surely reporting events would serve us much better than reporting your opinion, however innocent you may think that is.
Complain about this comment
JorgeG1 @119
Signing up to Schengen is not a matter of being pro-EU or pro-European. I think you may misinterpret the nature of the British Peoples who are generally pro-European but not necessarily pro-EU and often EU-sceptic.
Yes, in 1975 the British voters agreed that the UK should remain within the EEC in the one referendum that has been held in the UK regarding the UK relationship with Europe.
The Schengen Treaties were later events being adopted in 1985 and 1990 and a separate issue to the EEC, EC and subsequent EU transformation treaties.
The Treaty of Rome introduced the concept of free movement of peoples between the member states - Schengen seeks to additionally remove borders and custom controls.
The UK complies with the free movement of EU state nationals merely asking for passport checks to ensure that the entrant into the UK is an EU Member State national.
The United Kingdoms choice as to accepting Schengen is a democratic choice of the UK Parliament and, in my opinion, quite rightly, successive UK Parliaments have chosen to not seek to adopt the Schengen principles of no borders and no custom controls as the UK still retains special relationship with countries belonging to the Commonwealth of Nations - something that the EU and Schengen Treaty countries don't have to worry about.
In simplistic terms, the UK could not administer free borders for associate Schengen nationals/goods AND control the massive movement of peoples and goods from India, Pakistan or the Caribbean as well as the Dominions of Canada and Australia (and other smaller Commonwealth Countries in Africa and the Pacific) - nationals of which have reasons for entering and leaving the UK without fear of let or hindrance as Commonwealth Country citizens and goods provided to the UK as staple foods and commodities though long-standing Trade Agreements which have existed long before the UK ever joined the EEC.
Not being part of Schengen seems to me to make sense for the UK and the fact that the UK Parliament chooses to not adopt Schengen is for better reasons than being anti-European, EU-sceptic or isolationist.
Complain about this comment
KennethM @122
For goodness sake. This is Blog and it is Mark's personal mirror upon his thoughts and his chance to add his opinion to his more official BBC Reports which clearly have to be unbiased and thus sometimes, necessarily, lack candour or colour.
As it happens, I entirely agree with Mark's opinion that the EU Council of Minister's Extraordinary Meeting regarding the EU-Russia Relationship IS surprisingly tough.
The EU Ministers have collectively castigated Russia for unilaterally recognising the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, demanded the withdrawal of Russian Troops in accordance with their obligations having signed up to the EU-brokered six-point peace agreement.
The EU have also collectively agreed to support the Georgian's with financial and technical support to ensure they remain independent from Russian domination.
I was, personally, concerned that the EU would abrogate it's responsibilities towards maintaining the freedom of Europeans who seek freedom and democracy – by doing so sacrificing the integrity of the EU on the alter of appeasement.
As it happens the EU Member State Ministers were a lot more forceful with their words of disapproval of Russia's action regarding Georgia and that is fact as you too can read the EU-Russia Report issued by the Council of Ministers and read the castigation of Russia for yourself.
Complain about this comment
#101, Rob_Hob,
You are so naive!!!
Americans will spend billions if not ttrillions getting themselves deeper and deeper in debt (what is it, 60% of the US foreign debt is to China?) on developing these systems, will have YOU pay for them (how, you will soon find out) only to realize how easily these systems can be circumvented at a tiny fraction of the cost. Speading dust on the calculated path of the lazer close enough to it (remember, Russians are pretty advanced in space technology) will easily render it useless.
Lazer is an optical device, right? Install a simple system around the launch pad to redirect the beam or defract it, and again it will be quite useless. These are just simple examples.
Russians just tested Topol-M - 13,000km in 25 minutes and god knows how many warheads. There is no system in existence today or in the foreseeable future that can stop the Russians from destroying the entire globe many times over if the Russians wanted to.
Thing is, they DON'T. And you are oblivious in supporting the US economic and military machine. Go for it. Fall victim of the hysteria.
As for the passports. As it was previously commented, at the collapse of the former SU, it was pretty easy to get a Russian passport. I was studying in Moscow then, and one of my fellow students, a Ukrainian nationalist, was extatic when Ukraine became independent.... that is until he got a draft notice (lol) and he quickly switched sides, dumped his Ukrainian passport and applied for a Russian passport, which he easily got! Things have changed since then.
To those still believing that Georgians are an innocent victim, and if you're capable of trying to be objective, just watch this 2-minute video on youtube made by a Georgian soldier. It made me SICK watching the bravery of the Geargian military.
Facts:
1) The attack came at the opening of the Olympic Games when by the long standing tradition, all wars should STOP! A cowardly stab in the back of sleeping civilians and unsuspecting opposition.
2) Georgian tanks firing INDISCSRIMINATELY at EVERYTHING in their path.
3) The extatic cowbow yelling every time a round is fired - isn't he just having FUN?!?!?!
Would they have acted differently had they known of the imminent Russian retaliation and that the Russian tanks are lurking somewhere around the nearest corner? I don't think we would have heard all those "yahoo's" coming out of that coward's mouth. So, what's all this hype about Russians pre-planning all this?
Had they been so bold hadn't they known or at least been promised support from THE Western democracy knowing full well that otherwise the Bear will cut their kahuna's off and send them home crying?
Now, let's think hypothetically.
Assuming the HRW reports are correct, and "only" a few dozen civilians died in the attack, and the Russians hadn't intervened, what would you have reported based on the facts listed above?
Something is telling me that these things would have happened:
1) the free western media would mention it as an insurgent suppression operation by the Georgian forces who, thanks to the US and Israeli training, quickly took control of the rebel enclaves and restored Georgian territorial integrity.
2) Russian peacekeepers not only failed to protect the innocent civilians but took part in looting of the SO and Abkhaz dwellings, and need to be replaced by NATO peacekeepers as soon as possible
3) The resulting civil war is all Russia's fault.
4) Georgia is welcoming two new NATO military bases, one in Tskhinval, and one in Suhumi.
Tell me I am off the mark.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob @ 101
"the Russians can keep on flying their propeller based and antiquated strategic bombers... and perhaps when one gets too close it can be lasered."
The thing with these bombers is that they act as a strategic deterrent, their role is to show other nuclear states that Russia does indeed have weapons which can destroy any opponent in the event of a nuclear attack. These planes are not meant to be a "first strike" or retaliation weapons - the Tu-160s and ICBMs are the weapons that are meant for that, as well as nuclear submarines as a "second strike" weapon.
However, Tu-95s can carry nuclear weapons which can be deployed very fast if need be (in several seconds for the wing mounted ones and under a minute for internal carried ones) and can be fired in rapid succession. Those weapons fly at very low altitudes of about 50 metres or less and have a range of about 3000 km or more for newest ones. Once they are fired the aircraft are expendable.
As such, these bombers don't have to get close to any border in the event of hostility and can just fire their load from thousands of kilometres away and run.
Having said all that their primary role in the event of hostilities is destruction of naval forces (read: aircraft carriers).
Peter_Sym @ 118
"A laser kills things by heating them up..."
As far as I understand a laser is a focused beam of light. As such, as I read somewhere, you just cover your aircraft and missiles in reflective coating or reflecting paints and the laser is powerless.
Complain about this comment
#125, forgot to say, in order to see the video on youtube, just search for "Georgian tanks rush Tskhinval".
Complain about this comment
#114, Rob_Hob, as Peter_Syms points out, a warhead
is specifically designed to dissipate heat.
There have been studies done to the effect that
one could pulse a laser in front of an incoming
warhead so as to create a shock wave which
would destroy the target, but as far as I know,
no system designed for actual use has employed
this principle.
As far as atmospheric dispersal goes, I believe
that problem was partially solved with adaptive optics.
You may have heard about astronomers using
lasers to create "guide stars", and then correcting
for distortion - this work was all done under the
original star wars system.
Any system designed to defend against a massive
incoming strike would have to have many layers,
be very expensive, and not foolproof. All-in-all,
just not worth the money.
Fortunately, a rational enemy wants to live,
so deterrence works with people like the Russians.
In the end, the way to get around the Russians
is probably to develop alternative energy supplies.
Complain about this comment
Just for the record, Schengen is not an EU project at all. Iceland and Norway have full implementation as non-members and Switzerland is due to follow. In contrast, Romania and Bulgaria are not part of the process. In fact, a precondition of full implementation for Hungary and Slovakia was increased security at the border with Romania in order to enforce the quota rules. I crossed the Slovak-Hungarian border a couple of times yesterday and there are absolutely no formalities. Crossings from Romania are individually scrutinised.
Complain about this comment
Why do people fail to see the facts?
1) The military hostilities have stopped. People are not dying anymore.
2) 98% of the 95% of people who voted wanted to be independent from Georgia. Doesn't it pretty much guarantee a civil war with MANY unneccessary casualties had the Georgians taken contol of the "insurgent enclaves"?
3) Russia expressly stated it is not interested in making either SO or Abkhazia part of Russia. Don't call them liars until they break their word.
What concerns me more is the Ukraine.
Again, hypothetically speaking, should Ukraine make a serious move to join NATO despite the fact that the majority of the population oppose that, and that causes civil unrest in the Crimea and some Eastern Ukrainian regions.
And, again hypothetically speaking, Russia finds a way to refrain from any active measures to instigate or furher deepen the separatist movement, would you, western Europe, support them in their pretty much unified decision to separate from the Ukraine and form their own states?
Of course, Poland would start crying wolf again, but just disregard it for now.
Complain about this comment
I believe that Medvedev in a phone conversation with Brown has actually asked for additional monitors to be provided by OSCE. While it is certainly the case that Russia did not make many friends with its excessively heavy handed intervention and appears not to be entering fully into the spirit of the six point plan, it is not true that they are totally ignoring international opinion.
My own view is that their failure to secure outright support at the Shanghai Group summit underlined that they had miscalculated and there are signs that they are now involved in a damage limitation exercise.
That having been said, the Russians will not look a gift horse in the mouth and will not hesitate to take advantage of a major fallout between Yushenko and Tymoshenko if it spills over from the constitutional forum onto the streets. Ukraine needs to tread very carefully indeed and so does NATO if it is considering membership.
Complain about this comment
oceansapart, threnodio, civil war in the Ukraine
is definitely a possibility that the Russians would
want to exploit. However, for now, the emphasis
of attention for both Russia and the US is
the Caspian Sea region.
I'll bet that the US side is attempting to find a
new route for pipelines from that region which
does not involve Georgia, and the Russians are
attempting to block any such efforts.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @131
I entirely agree!
The Ukraine will be a test for the West's desire to foster and support fledgling democracies whilst Russia cannot possibly want to give up on it self-defined "Sphere of Influence".
Dick Cheney may well be visiting the Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan this week to bolster the current governments of those three countries but I hardly imagine that the other NATO nations will be falling over themselves to support an offer to the Ukraine of imminent NATO membership.
That decision will very much depend on the Oval Office incumbent and whether he is Obama or McCain . . . . Even then I'm not sure that there is going to be a real appetite to continue confrontation with Russia.
The Ukrainian Ukrainians will be very disappointed but the Russian Ukrainians will no doubt be very happy - I guess it is a case of whether the 90%+ of Ukrainian's who voted for independence from the USSR post-Orange Revolution really do want independence or want to be encased in a "Sphere of Influence" with all the loss of freedom that that entails.
It is my view that true Democracy does not occur overnight with revolutions but has to be fostered and developed.
Democracy at the point of a gun cannot be sustained but Democracy can be developed by people seeing the benefits of democracy in a neighbouring country where free-market principles and well-run economies can bring wealth and prosperity and envy is a far better motivation for people to overthrow or change their government to that of democratic choice. For the Ukrainians this will be when they see that the Poland Nation has become independent, more secure, more prosperous and better off for being a free people with democratic choices.
One just has to hope that this happens for the Ukrainians sooner rather than happen when it is too late and the Ukraine has become encased within the Russian “Sphere of Influence” and the Ukrainian peoples no longer have any choice in the matter.
Complain about this comment
Guns indeed I know about adaptive optics, or interference patterns, etc. Various schemes could be used to focus light. One thing I do not know is the time on target needed for a laser to destroy a warhead. My point was that a laser does not suffer from the limitations of an interceptor missile, as soon as it finishes with one target, it can be pointed at another within its range. Provided the destruction time is short, one laser can target many incoming missiles.
I have no idea about costs either.
My point was not that these weapons are ready to just yet take out a full scale incoming Russian nuclear strike, but that the West is working towards technologies that may allow exactly this in the near future. Something to focus the minds of the Russians on in light of their tests of new nuclear missiles, and showing off of other weapons.
I agree that at this time the best way to protect agaist Russia is through economic means, and through energy security in particular. I have been saying for years that to protect themselves against economic blackmail, the EU should invest in new generation nuclear plants, renewables where they make a cost effective sense, oil from algae for biofuel, and similar. For that matter this would also be a boom to the EU economy.
As for the rest... NO. I doubt simply painting something with a reflective coat of paint, or covering it with mirrors will work. These are weapon grade lasers, not keychain pointers.
Ocean, I'll believe in referenda in SO and Abkhazia IF they are internationally supervised, AND all the Georgians ethnically cleansed from those territories are allowed to vote. Otherwise quoting figures close to 100% support is meaningless.
Complain about this comment
#134, Rob_Hob, that's right, reflective coatings
do not work, even if the target is spinning because
it only takes a short time to degrade them,
after which time they are useless.
Complain about this comment
gunsandreligion @ 135
"that's right, reflective coatings
do not work, even if the target is spinning because it only takes a short time to degrade them, after which time they are useless."
I guess it all depends at how short is short, as the ICBMs on final stages are travelling at hypersonic speeds and from what I see the newer Russian ones have the ability to maneuver around. As such reflective coating will be useful in that it will buy precioius seconds that will mean the difference between hit and miss. Moreover, there are problems with targeting such objects that are moving at 5000+ kilometres an hour doing all sorts of erratic maneuvres etc.
oceansapart @ 130
"What concerns me more is the Ukraine."
Indeed. We'll just have to wait and see how everything turns out.
Complain about this comment
#133, Menedemus,
Why in the world would Ukrainians look to Poland? Do you believe that Poland is economically more sound than Russia or because that Ukrainians are more tied to Poles than Russians?
What if Russian economy really boosts and the standard of living get real close to that of Western Europe, say Germany, or Norway? Not Poland, of course. Would you be offended then if the Ukrainians looked towards Russia?
Everyone is talking about the threat of Russia. Anyone dare to suggest how Russia could/should protect itself from NATO all the while still trying to remain/become friends with the rest of Europe and the US? Is that at all feasible? Is NATO actually a friendly organization to Russia?
Or is the basic premise here that Russia is the enemy who is looking to strike first and, subsequently, is the "bad" guy? And whater the NATO does is "a priori" right because it is "us" against "them", and we are always right? But this is fundamentally wrong, racist, and derogatory. Russians DO love their children, too.
Could it be that if NATO and the EU actually took a REAL step to show Russians that it WANTS to be friends or at least show no hostility towards Russia, it would help?
And of course it would have to start with the EU, to show the will and diplomatic wisdom. Friends don't always have to agree like the EU singing to the US tune. Having and open mind and willing to listen without judging would help, too.
1) Russia is part of Europe, and it is not going to change.
2) Russia is rich in mineral resources
3) Russia is populated by intelligent, educated people
4) Russia has EARNED respect. Being the major force behind defeating the nazies and thus saving lord knows how many million lives (even at the expense of prolonged though still temporary occupasion of several adjoying states) at least deserves a humble "thank you" from the rest of Europe which Russia is yet to hear.
5) Talking down to Russia is fruitless; this will only annoy them even more;
In the recent history, did the West agree with Russia once on a major issue? Kosovo, Iraq, Russian offer to use its radars against "rogue" islamic states?
It looks like no matter what Russia will say or do, it gets criticised. So what does the EU expect in return? Love? Submission?
I guess the latter but it ain't gonna happen and you know it.
Vicious circle? I don't think so. Where there is a will, there is a way. Russians are yet to see the Europe's will...
Complain about this comment
To #117 littleMademoiselle,
I quite agree with Menedemus comments in #120, I don't quite know what planet you're from but maybe you were left here by aliens to confuse the natives, either that or the missing link exists. Anybody who seriously believes that the French can organise a p**s up in a brewery has never either been in a managerial position in France or knows the French way of working (destroying), after all the phrase 'yet another disaster pulled from the jaws of victory' and the French derived word surrender do typify that country.
By the way, Russia could never be a partner, that involves an equal partnership, and there is nothing in their history that suggests they can tolerate anything other than domination, always it is that they will punish those who don't accept to be reverted back to slavery. Quite frankly if you and the others who have suddenly appeared on this blog like them so much then go and live there, oops not so interesting I think as like all screwballs they try to spread their disease across those who are not so far inflicted.
Finally, It occurred to me that the excuse used to invade Georgia of protecting Russian citizens could be used by any country, after all there are plenty of US, UK, EU citizens across the world, even in Moscow. Maybe the rogue nations in the far east had better be careful as Russia seems to be particularly looking towards Iran and Syria and since the west has nationals there, all bets are off.
Complain about this comment
Just as a last comment to mu last post.
Remember the saying that says if you repeat the same thing over and over again, which is not true, one day even you yourself will start beleiving it.
So if you keep telling Russia that no matter what they do they are always wrong, what happens is:
1) since no one can possibly be either right or wrong all the time, how are Russians supposed to know if what they do is right or wrong from the EU's perspective?
2) Russians will have to agree that they are always wrong, develop an inferiority complex and submit to the EU's and US' will; do you see that happening? me neither... so let's move on to
3) Russians will tune the EU out and will quietly continue with their own agenda; with enough nukes and economic independence they can spit towards Europe every time it barks
4) there are enough "rogue" states out there who will be more than willing to stir some .... with a little help and cause trouble in order to deflect attention from whatever Russia may be doing to ensure no one has the necessary resources or determination to "punish" Russia.
Don't we all see that it is better for everyone to have the "bear" as a friend rather than THE enemy. Especially that the bear does not have rebies as many suggest.
Complain about this comment
ISeeAll, you may be right or wrong. I do not know which. However, all these are technological problems to be solved. As for manuvering, the beauty of lasers is that nothing moves faster than the speed of light. Provided a very fast focusing mechanism is developed, a laser should be able to stay "glued" to the missile, as long as it can see it. If I were working in this field, I'd know what my research priorities should be :) ... but I think I'm going a little off topic, let's just agree that this one is not quite ready yet, but a real possibility for the future.
Complain about this comment
Oceans, I may agree with some of what you say, but one thing I am not going to do is respect Russia for WWII. Russia should be cursed over WWII, as initially, up to the time Hitler invaded the USSR, the USSR was ALLIED with Nazi Germany (trained Nazis soldiers, co-operated militarily, supplied war materials to Germany, and so on). The USSR invaded Poland about two weeks after the Nazis did, and then split it with them. I have no idea how WWII would turn out if Poland did not have to fight on two fronts, but Germany would not have done as well as it did so early on. The sacrifice of so many lives in the USSR during WWII is partly the fault of its own government, by helping Hitler invade Poland, and thus giving him the time to build up to attack the USSR.
Complain about this comment
#138, Buzet23,
=============
Finally, It occurred to me that the excuse used to invade Georgia of protecting Russian citizens could be used by any country, after all there are plenty of US, UK, EU citizens across the world, even in Moscow. Maybe the rogue nations in the far east had better be careful as Russia seems to be particularly looking towards Iran and Syria and since the west has nationals there, all bets are off.
==============
To which I can tell you if Russians start killing US citizens on its territory for no apparent reason, I, as a Russian, would welcome NATO forces in Moscow myself and be first to support that effort.
And vice versa, if the Canadian government decides to call on all Canadians who hold Russian passports and sends them all to build another transcanada railway killing those who disagree, I would expect Russia to react.
Do you see anything like that happening in Canada? No? I don't, either. So Canada has absolutely nothing to worry about.
Please, STOP exploiting this fact. It is stupid.
There is an ongoing dispute between Russia and the Baltic states regarding the status of ethnic Russians there but it is being resolved diplomatically. Or do you see any Russian troops deployed anywhere in Estonia killing and looting? Jeez, grow up.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob, you are quite right - the technology is not standing still - there will be weapons and counterweapons, and counter-counterweapons and so on.
Though I hope you can understand how threatening it makes the US/NATO look to Russians. What we see is that US is actively working on neutralising the only thing we have that prevents it from attacking us directly - no wonder we feel all paranoid and want something done about it by supporting our government's recent actions and possible future actions. Quite a lot of Russians are all but sure that US/NATO are planning to attack Russia and are now preparing for that by creating SDI systems to be able to strike first without fear of retaliation, stationing defensive missiles in Europe (10 can become 100, which can then become 1000 and so on as some people claim), encircling Russia by NATO members so that a simultaneous attack on many fronts may be launched, subduing oil producing countries to have the necessary energy for such a move etc etc.
I know - this is going to sound but a paranoid rambling to you, but that what an average Russian thinks - the impressions I get by reading and participating in a number of local Internet forums in Russia.
As such, I think that oceansapart proposes the best solution at the moment - stop doing all of those hostile-perceived actions, talk to us, show us that you are not bent on destroying us, show us that joining you will be better for all of us, and, most importantly, prove that. We are all human beings after all (Europeans on top of that), and as such, should be able to understand each other.
Complain about this comment
#141, Rob_Hob,
Your emotions speak for you, not your brain.
Don't even get me started on all this Polish issue. Read your own history and then watch "the Pianist" again. It's all there. And no, Roman Polanski and Adrien Brodey are not Russian. Clearly you are Polish, you are so easy to tell from everyone else for your blind hatred of anything Russian. That should be a sign for the EU to filter you guys out.
Especially for you, I just looked up the Wikipedia.
Soviet Union casualties: 10.7 military, 11.4 civilian. These are casualties from the actions of Germans and their allies.
75% !!!!!!! of German casualties occurred on the Eastern front.
Here's more from the same wikipedia. Again, these are NOT Russian sponsored sites, so you can't question their objectivity. The same source says that almost ALL russian pow's died in german captivity. My grandma is a survivor of a german concentration camp in poland.
============
The russians lost about 10 million soldiers on the eastern front, of which approx. 4 million died as pow's (almost all russian pow's died in german captivity). In addition to that about 20 million russian civilians died.
Germany lost in total 5.5 million dead soldiers and 1.8 million dead civilians. In addition to that about 8 million german soldiers were captured. On the eastern front approx. 3.5-4 million german soldiers died (around 75%). At the end of the war, the russians held about 3 million german pow's, americans held about 4 million (of which they transferred 1 million after the war to the russians), and the british held about 1 million german pow's.
So the biggest losses of the germans were indeed on the eastern front, but if you also take pow's into account, losses are almost matched.
=============
Any questions whose contribution decided the outcome of the war, my dear Russian-hater?
And here's the KILLER for you.
From the same wikipedia.
Polish casualties: 240,000 military, and 2,360,000 civilian. Does anyone NOT know who the overwhelming majority of the civilian casualties were? Polish JEWS, not Poles who were actually quite happy in the beggining to see the Jews being exterminated and looted their shops and houses.
If I were you, I would really keep quiet and take advantage of people who don't know the history and are lazy to open a history book. Because, once they know, they won't listen to you anymore.
Poland is like a skunk. You can't really have one for a friend and it's pretty useless as a business partner.
It constantly stinks, and when one sprays, it is very unpleasant but never deadly.
Complain about this comment
oceansapart @133
You wrote: "...Why in the world would Ukrainians look to Poland? Do you believe that Poland is economically more sound than Russia or because that Ukrainians are more tied to Poles than Russians?"
Poland's economy is now booming not least of all because many Poles have travelled abroad and earned income in the wealthier rest of the EU and are returning home more wealthy and bringing with them economic contacts to expand trade and industry in Poland for import and export benefits with the rest of the EU which is, when all is said and done, more of common market than an efficient political organisation.
As it happens my comment to threnodio was that IF Poland is seen to be benefiting from being now being a free market economy and that democracy brings with it benefits of democratic choice then an adjacent country, such as is the Ukraine, will see the benefits and the Ukrainian envy of these benefits will mean that the Ukrainians will seek to copy Poland and want to voluntarily join the EU. In fact, the political savvy elite of the Ukraine already know and understand the economic benefits of EU membership – hence Ukraine is already seeking EU membership.
My rider was that the improvement for Poland would have to be sooner rather than later simply because, in the meantime, I am quite sure, Russia will try to bring the Ukraine back under its "Sphere of Influence" which will severely restrict the free choice of Ukrainians.
You have got to be joking about the Russian Economy surely?
I see the Russian Economy as a State-led Economy that has concentrated power in the hands of Oligarchs and driven for the benefit of the Government. The Russian Economy is basically a single massive Fossil Fuel driven economy. Much is made of Russian fossil fuel reserves but the reality is that ALL global Fossil Fuel deposits are finite and Russia is already on the downward slope of the economic exploitation of Gas and Petroleum Deposits within its borders.
The recent Russian escapade in Georgia wiped an immediate 14% of the value of the Moscow Stock Values and this is unlikely to recover as (as has been pointed out by many western politicians) Russia is no longer seen as a trusted economic ally and inward investment from the wealthier West is going to dry up.
I would certainly say that the Poles have more chance of higher GDP than Russia in due course and, having seen the Polish work ethic, I can believe that they could become a powerhouse economy within the EU in very short order of time. They certainly won't be stinted for inward investment!
Complain about this comment
#136, ISeeAll, you are quite right, targeting
warheads on reentry with lasers is difficult,
so we prefer to use other methods. Lasers
are primarily useful during the boost phase,
when the enemy missile is in its launch phase.
#141, you are quite right, the USSR was
allied with the Nazis until they were attacked
themselves, and that explains a lot of the
fear that the Poles and other Eastern Europeans
have over a resurgent Russia.
#143, I can understand why you are paranoid
about NATO expansion, but then, Russia created
a large part of the problem by building that reactor
for the Iranians. Supplying nuclear technology
and surface to air missile defense systems to
a regime which claims as one of its aims to
"wipe Israel from the map" is not exactly the
way to earn our trust.
What if we gave the Chechens nukes? Wouldn't
you feel threatened?
Complain about this comment
ISeeAll, it is a little of a conundrum, Poland feels similarly about Russia as Russia does about the West... and Poland does not have the nukes or the large military, while it is not entirely sure all of its allies will help when necessary. That's why the missile shield will now exist, because Poland wants alliance with the USA. The Baltic states are even more worried.
I am not sure how in practice anybody can be nicer to Russia without compromising their won safety and interests. For example NATO may have not expanded beyond Germany, but the new countries in NATO would have been vulnerable to and unable to defend themselves... as such more susceptible to Russian pressure, even without being attacked.
The problem is that each side plans for the worst likely outcome, and in a climate of threats and pressures, this means they are preparing for an attack... if not an immediate one, at least a future one... and doing otherwise would be irresponsible.
I guess this a classic escalation between Russia and the West. No idea how you can break the cycle, but the solutions are likely to be practical and thus reassuring and not simply idealistic.
Complain about this comment
#144, oceansapart, many Poles died in Nazi
extermination camps. It was not just Jewish Poles.
It is true that before the war there was a lot of
anti-semitism in Poland, but I doubt that much
exists today. The issue at stake here is whether
people can acknowledge the mistakes of the
past and move on. Otherwise, we are never
going to have a peaceful world.
As far as the Poles being "skunks," that sounds
a little nasty. I think that we could all do a little
better by realizing that people on the other side
of a border are human beings, regardless of
the politics of their government.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#146, gunsandreligion,
With attitute like yours, you will never "get it". You clearly are anti-Russian "just because", and you don't know history very well.
Alleging that USSR and Germany were allies is so offending and so untrue, and when you so confidently confirm this false claim made by another writer, Russians will never negociate with someone like you.
Read the wikipedia. The key words there are "NON-AGRESSION TREATY", "renounced warfare between the two countries", "pledged neutrality".
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, colloquially named after Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, was an agreement officially entitled the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, signed in Moscow in the early hours of August 24, 1939, dated August 23, that renounced warfare between the two countries and pledged neutrality by either party if the other were attacked by a third party. Each signatory promised not to join any grouping of powers that was “directly or indirectly aimed at the other party”.
It was a very smart move by Stalin at the time as it bought the Soviets the precious time to beef up its military in order to face the inevitable, the German invasion.
Yes, it did happen at the cost of thousands of Polish lives as Poland was divided between Germany and USSR but it created a buffer zone that the Soviets had hoped would buy them additional time.
Yes, it was tragic what happened to Poland in 1939 and afterwards. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, as the successor, and mind you, ONLY RUSSIA (no other former Soviet republic, Georgia included), admitted to committing those atrocities and apologised. So, what else do you want?
GET OVER IT.
Complain about this comment
Oceans, the way I have been taught is that about 6 million Poles died in WWII. 3 million of those were Catholics, and 3 million Jews, but ALL Poles. I'm not sure to which side your figure refers to, maybe just the Catholics. YES, Russia's body count was higher in number, but Poland's was higher as a percentage of the population, about 16% of Poles were killed... that's about 1 in 6.
I have one question for you, do you know about the alliance between the USSR and Nazi Germany or not? Is what I said true or false?
P.S. Yes, I checked, you did not read the wikipedia table correctly. The Polish WWII dead are as follows: military 240,000; civilians (non-Jewish I assume) 2,360,000; Polish Jews 3,000,000. Total of 5,600,000 or 16.07% of prewar population. By comparison the USSR lost 23,100,000 or 13.71% of prewar population (this not only includes Russians but all USSR territory). By comparison the USA lost 418,500 or 0.32% of the population, most of them military. UK 450,400 0.94%. France 567,600 or 1.35% of the population.
Overall Poland lost the most people percentage wise, while the USSR lost the most number wise. Remember Poland is a much smaller country, and close to 6 million there is a LOT from the smaller population.
Complain about this comment
#150, oceansapart:
"Yes, it did happen at the cost of thousands of Polish lives as Poland was divided between Germany and USSR but it created a buffer zone that the Soviets had hoped would buy them additional time."
It's incredible how you are able to gloss over
this incident! The Soviets invaded the place!
As far as the term "non-aggression pact" goes,
we really don't care what you call it. The Soviets
could have supported the Poles in their fight
against the Germans, but there must be some
long-standing feud between these two cultures
going back centuries.
In any case, Russia still has to come to grips
with its past. You've just proven my point.
Complain about this comment
Oceansapart, #150,
It seems like you think Stalin was a true hero, how many of those Russian dead were killed by him because they were Jews or Gypsies, impossible to say due to Russia destroying records but estimated as similar to what Hitler killed. The abomination called Hitler was just the same as the abomination called Stalin, what's curious is that it seems he was Georgian, but then you guys embraced him and his warped mentality with open arms so what does that say about Russia and it's collaboration with Germany in the early years of WWII, like attracts like!
GET USED TO IT as we know the bear and we Know your history.
Complain about this comment
#151, Rob_Hob,
I stand corrected about the Polish numbers. Thank you. I didn't see there was a separate column for holocaust victims.
What prompted me was your comment
===================
Oceans, I may agree with some of what you say, but one thing I am not going to do is respect Russia for WWII
===================
I share your frustration over the division of Poland and the killing of the Polish officers in Katyn, but stretching it to say the USSR ALLIED with nazi Germany and denying its contribution to defeating the nazi Germany, that's like saying there was no holocaust to a Jew.
Thank you for your last post, it was quite balanced.
And BTW,
I was born in Belarus. 1 in 4 were killed in Belarus. That's 25% of the population of 10 million. The vast majority were civilians.
Please, refrain from furhter insults of the Soviets who died defending your freedom (even if it came 40 years after the war ended). At least you're enjoying it now.
If the USSR truly allied with the nazi Germany in 1939, I have no doubt in my mind, German would the universal language today, not just in Europe.
Complain about this comment
Oceansapart,
Calling the Polish people skunks is hardly fair comment.
As regards your comments directed to gunsandreligion at #150 your history recital forgets on important aspect of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
There was a protocol within the Pact to divide Poland in the event that Germany was involved in hostilities with Poland. It was the "price" that Molotov demanded to give Germany free reign and prevent Germany from having to face a two-front war.
As it happened, after the Germans had invaded Poland on 1st Septemebr 1939 and captured Warsaw, Russian troops moved forward to "prevent the disintegration of the Polish Republic" . . . . . in fact Russia and Germany agreed to delete Poland as a country on the world maps.
At that same time (17 September 1939) the Katyn Forest Massacre occurred and this Wikipedia article makes very interesting reading. Please note, unlike many Wikipedia entries which relate to Russia and which are marked as "disputed" - this particular entry is accepted fact and indeed was admitted as a war crime of the NVKD in 1990 by Russia.
It does not make for very good reading for the nature of the Russian treatment of the Polish Intelligentsia at that time!
Complain about this comment
gunsandreligion @ 146
"Russia created a large part of the problem by building that reactor for the Iranians."
The truth behind this is that the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant construction was started by Germany in 1975 with the explicit support of the US and the West while a pro-Western government was in control of Iran. All the complications started when US suddenly decided to include Iran on its "axis of evil" in 2002, though I don't remember anything of a sort when Russia first got the contract and started work on finishing the reactors in 1995.
Notwithstanding all of that, Iran has an explicit right under the international law as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to "peacefully use nuclear technology", that is - build and operate nuclear power plants and to enrich uranium as fuel for those plants.
As for USSR and Nazis being allied during the first stages of the Second World War - that is complete nonsense and is, actually, offensive for Russians (me included). If we were allied, as you say, the Cold War would have been a struggle between Greater Germany and USSR, and today there would be no such countries as France/UK and all the rest.
oceansapart, as much as I use Wikipedia for a quick info on many different facts, it is *not* an authoritative source of information, as the very concept of the resource means it can not be really relied on without backing from other sources.
oceansapart and Rob-Hob - arguing about who is right on the basis of how many of your people have died in a war is just fundamentally wrong.
Buzet23 @ 149
"As for Russians killing other countries citizens on their territory"
The US is just as bad when it comes to neutralising "undesirable" people, though it prefers to do so in third countries (such as in Guantanamo or those recent scandals involving CIA prisons in Europe). And, before you start bashing me - US is supposed to be the "moral high ground holder here, the shining beacon of democracy and human rights". Well, if it really is, then even a single violation of any of those values makes it look much, *much* worse than Russia.
Complain about this comment
#154, oceansapart, the best thing that we can
do with WWII is to put it aside and let the wounds
heal, much as the US healed after the civil war.
No good can come of all of the suffering in that
conflict, except to put it behind us.
Complain about this comment
The Soviets were not defending freedom. I am ready to be corrected on facts, but this what I know about the so called "non-agression" pact:
* the pact was an alliance in the full sense of the word
* the USSR was supporting Nazi Germany by training some of its military, and supplying its economy with raw materials for was production prior to the outbreak of WWII and before the so called "non-agression" pact
* when the Soviets invaded, they did not behave as liberators: they fought the Polish army in support of the Germans, killing and capturing then executing a LOT soldiers; they treated the invaded territory as conquered land, mistreating civilians, looting, etc.
* this WAS NOT just to create a buffer zone, as soon as they grabbed the territory they started putting in their own government structures and treating it as their own, they did not consult with the Polish governement, etc... these were not allies
I expected this reaction because from my experience Russians do not know the details, the whole thing is taught to them as a treaty on paper, but not an alliance with Nazi Germany. The Soviet propaganda about WWII perists in Russia and some other places. The alliance did not work out because Hitler the maniac betrayed USSR, after that point the Soviet propaganda changed to its current interpretation.
I do not know how hard Belarus was hit, though probably hard as well. Ukraine would be another area badly affected because of all the battles through there.
It is interesting how old Soviet attitudes still persist.
I have to go off for a few days, so can't continue this exchange... but I think I said what I wanted.
Complain about this comment
Fresh news from CNN.
Pakistan, Afghanistan deplore U.S. attacks
"Such cowardly acts against innocent civilians not only constitute a violation of the international humanitarian norms and the principles of the United Nations Charter but also fuel the fire of violence and hatred," Qureshi told lawmakers Thursday.
Wonder how much the CNN is NOT saying.
And it's been going on for YEARS. And you still believe in US as the savior.
And you (the EU) still have the guts to blame Russia. And you still continue to support extremests and choose not to hear the voice of reason.
Will anyone of you within the EU DARE to condemn the US actions? Or Pakistani and Afghani lives are a write-off as sub-human to you?
Whether right or wrong, Russia completed its mission in 4 (FOUR days) causing MINIMAL casualties to the enemy, and the peace was restored. Look deeper within yourselves and ask if you really really CARE?
Complain about this comment
ISeeAll #156,
You say "Well, if it really is, then even a single violation of any of those values makes it look much, *much* worse than Russia.",
funny really how people like you view the US and how you fondly believe that even people like me who know the American dream is a farce would be stupid enough to think the US is worse than Russia.
Presumably you can forgive the killing of dissidents with toxic radioactive substances anywhere in the world. Leaving traces of Polonium across London showed their arrogance and desire for control. Maybe it's time for the debt to be repaid on Russian soil, fairs fair don't you think as Russia shelters some very undesirable people.
As for statistics and Wikipedia, almost all entries are from external people, if warped people put warped statistics up there then it proves nothing. What counts is what people have experienced, and living as a peasant in a soviet controlled dictatorship whilst the party hierarchy enjoyed the life of Riley was not easy from what lots of former sufferers have told me. It was no wonder whilst that hierarchy had to be escorted when they were on public roads. Whilst the morals of the USA are bad they are not comparable to the 'Bear' you seem to admire, the bear seems to have no morals whatsoever!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
oceansapart #159,
Just ask yourself what your own soldiers did when they were in Afghanistan and why they left pretty quick, often with drug problems, and why Russia is now one the the biggest export areas for cocaine these days. I have never seen Russia worrying about civilians in any of it's numerous conflicts, remember your old Communist motto about the end justifies the means.
There are none so blind as those who can see, or have believed the indoctrination they've been spoon-fed since birth, those days have gone, question what you were told for once.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 @ 160
"Presumably you can forgive the killing of dissidents with toxic radioactive substances anywhere in the world. Leaving traces of Polonium across London showed their arrogance and desire for control. Maybe it's time for the debt to be repaid on Russian soil, fairs fair don't you think as Russia shelters some very undesirable people."
Funny how quickly westerners forget the "innocent before proven guilty" concept when it comes to allegations against Russia. As I understand it the guilt of the accused was never proven. You can say that that is because Russia doesn't want to hand over its citizen to UK courts (which is explicitly forbidden by our Constitution), which is partially true, but Russia did ask for the evidence collected by Britain to try him in Russia - and, well, Britain didn't provide anything. Which *suggests* that Britain just made the whole thing up.
Britain is also sheltering a number of very undesirable people from my and Russian point of view and has no intention of handing them over to Russia.
In any case, the general attitude in western media shows that whenever an accusation is made against Russia everyone will buy it however ridiculous it might sound and however unsupported by real facts it might be. And when it is proven that the allegation is false, everyone just prefers to quietly forget about the whole affair.
Do you see why we find it so hard to trust the West?
And, for the record, I do not admire the 'Bear'. I, of course, am very proud of a number of our accomplishments like the Victory in WW2, Space Conquest etc, but at the same time I am quite opposed to many actions and processes in modern Russia as I can feel their impact first hand. But that still doesn't give the West the right to dismiss us outright.
Complain about this comment
As a US American, I can hardly go around pointing my finger when it comes to the international arena.
However, I hope that Europeans realize that theUS is, for them, a preferable partner than Russia. Although, given geography, it is also equally obvious that Russia is inevitably going to be more crucial trade wise, given that it exports raw materials that Europe needs, akin to the way European economies relied on materials from their undeveloped colonies during the imperial age.
When Europeans agree to slap Russia on the wrist for invading, as they did 40 years ago, a nominally sovereign country, they must take into account four realities.
1) There are large numbers of stateless Russians within the EU (i.e. the Baltics) that are justifiably frustrated with their governments. They have been denied citzenship by theoretically democratic EU governments. They could, in a worst case scenario, represent a threat within the EU (think of nice Christian Orthodox "jihadists" that attack with the internet as opposed to bombs).
2) Russia is expanding its sphere of influence directly into the EU by stating that the government of the Federation has the duty and right to intervene on the behalf of Russians "wherever they are." What would the EU do if and when Russia invades the European Union proper versus a country on the Eurasian periphery? Will Brussels be as passive if Russia invades the Baltics to protectin the ethnic Russian Lithuanians, Estonians, and Latvians?
3) Russia in many ways is rapidly becoming a colder, "European" Saudi Arabia. As opposed to using oil money to fund radical Islam, it is using oil money to fund a new 21st century imperialism in its "near-abroad" worshipping the almight rouble versus Allah. That near abroad, if Europeans remain weak in their response, could extend to Western Europe itself. The same cautiousness used with Saudi Arabia should be used with its frozen, Siberian cousin.
4) Russia itself is within the heart of the EU, by way of its Kaliningrad oblast. It is high time that the EU realize that this is not just a problem on its periphery. Look at a map to see how much Russia protrudes already into the EU. Don't think of just the small Baltics as being potential targets: think aslo of Poland, Sweden, and even Germany as targets of Russian domination.
An engaged Russia is as important to Europe as an engaged US. I just wish that I would see Europeans spewing as much venom towards the Russians as they do towards us US Americans, especially considering that they are much more of a threat given the four points above than the US is.
Complain about this comment
As interesting as this blog is, I have to bail. Time will tell...
Meanwhile, Canada is the best country in the world, humble, prosperous and not trigger happy.
Complain about this comment
Mark_Wiscon @ 164
I do nto dissent from your assessment of the facts but would just like to clear up a possible misunderstanding?
You wrote: "2) Russia is expanding its sphere of influence directly into the EU by stating that the government of the Federation has the duty and right to intervene on the behalf of Russians "wherever they are." What would the EU do if and when Russia invades the European Union proper versus a country on the Eurasian periphery? Will Brussels be as passive if Russia invades the Baltics to protectin the ethnic Russian Lithuanians, Estonians, and Latvians?"
The reaction to an invasion of any member state of the EU is equivalent to an attack on a NATO member State and if that country invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty then all countries of NATO must respond in support.
The support does not have to be immediate miltary response but Russia would find itself immediately attacked by sufficient militaries to halt the invasion and all non-military support would be targetted at Russia to halt it's invasion. That is the NATO concept.
In reality the US and the UK would undoubtedly declare war on Russia (as would a number of other countries especially those involved in or closest to the incursion) and the rest of NATO member states would have to follow suit in order to preserve their own reputation, integrity and safety.
In actual fact, the former WER member states have an even deeper relationship and that pact does not allow for any equivocation - an attack on a WER member state requires other WER nations to provide military support immediately. WER was a forerunner to NATO but still exists and the WER concept will likely be the cornerstone of any future EU Army.
Having said all this, I am not convinced that Russia has any intention of invading any part of the EU especially any EU State that has joined NATO and the Kalingrad issue is a '"problem" that will be resolved peacefully with Russia.
The alternative is unthinkable but, unfortunately for Russia, as a direct result of their invasion of Georgia, the EU will be very much more wary of dealings with Russia and the EU political minds will be very much concentrated on Defence and removing any economic dependence upon Russia as soon as practicable.
Complain about this comment
To ISeeAll #163,
You say "but Russia did ask for the evidence collected by Britain to try him in Russia - and, well, Britain didn't provide anything. Which *suggests* that Britain just made the whole thing up."
Not wanting him to be tried and found innocent in an almost certainly staged trial in Moscow is not the same as that the evidence was made up. Your justice system is not independent of state control and to have succumbed to that ploy would have meant the UK authorities were fools. If that suspect, and I mean suspect, leaves Russia he can be arrested and tried, maybe even in the Hague, then we'll see how much, if any, was made up. But until then please accept that we have the right to suspect and criticise Russia as rightly it deserves, and that as #164 points out the US is far more the target of hatred than Russia, but that could soon change if Russia carries on with it's imperialism direction.
BTW, I do agree that the UK shields some very undesirable characters but that is mainly because the UK signed up to the dreaded Human Rights legislations that give more rights to terrorists than the victims, and our independent courts follow those laws to the letter against the wishes of the government. I know of nobody in the UK that's not fed up with the UK giving sanctuary to all and sundry, and hopefully the next government will have the balls to revoke that legislation and replace it with something that is fairer to all.
To Mark_Wiscon #164,
You mention stateless Russians in the EU, that surprises me as firstly they do have a nationality, but if they were stateless then they would be considered as political refugees and be eventually accepted as citizens of the EU. Whilst each EU country has it's own rules the status of a refugee is quite different and much quicker. For Instance, In Belgium a non refugee would have to have lived there for three years and a refugee two, to ask for Belgian Nationality (this is from the Belgian portal but when I asked for Nationality I was told seven years). What is far more difficult is not the citizenship but the acceptance of qualifications gained in the persons home country because if you can't work you get frustrated whilst doing menial jobs whilst re-training. The homologation of qualifications across Europe is one area where the EU is failing badly as it affects all EU citizens who try to be mobile and not just refugees.
Complain about this comment
4) "Russia has EARNED respect. Being the major force behind defeating the nazies and thus saving lord knows how many million lives (even at the expense of prolonged though still temporary occupasion of several adjoying states) at least deserves a humble "thank you" from the rest of Europe which Russia is yet to hear."
Is that a joke? Stalin helped create the Nazi's by helping Hitler develop his weapons and tactics on Russian soil. He invaded the other half of Poland 17 days after Hitler (according to the molotov-ribbentrop pact) and executed Polands officer corp in the Katyn forest. He was Hitlers ally up until 1941 when Hitler turned on him. I would strongly argue that WW2 wouldn't have happened if Hitler hadn't been 100% certain he wouldn't start a war with Russia prematurely.
As an encore stalin made damn sure the defenders of Warsaw in 1944 were wiped out ensuring he could occupy the country for another 60 years. Damn near every civillian in the red army's path was raped or assaulted and anything not nailed down stolen. Europe, and especially Poland is as likely to thank Russia for its 'help' in WW2 as Japan will thank the US for Hiroshima.
Complain about this comment
oceansapart @159,
You are quite right that the US and NATO is making a hash in Afghanistan.
I suggest that we offer NATO membership to Russia if they first completely pacify Afghanistan and Waziristan for the next 100 years by whatever means they deem suitable.
All problems solved!
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym @168,
Whilst I totally agree with you about the USSR's role before, during and after WWII, I think it is important to differentiate between the then USSR and today's Russia.
Just as Germany and Japan are today different countries, today Russia may not be a saint, but it sure ain't Stalin's USSR.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic #170,
You're right about Russia not being the same as Stalin's USSR but it does seem to have moved back towards the more recent USSR mentality. Many former Communist party leaders or supporters may have taken new coats as entrepreneurs but the old KGB is still there but just called by a new name (FSB). So whilst there has been some liberalisation of control of the citizens, in reality the state is even worse than the UK in the surveillance of its citizens.
As for inviting them to join Nato if they'll pacify Afghanistan, don't forget that they too got their fingers badly burnt there, as the terrain is perfect for guerilla fighting as the British Army found out one hundred years ago. At least the current British Army and Nato have an idea about what to do based on the failures of the past.
Complain about this comment
#137 - oceansapart
#145 - Menedemus
Menedemus has a point. Poland and Ukraine are roughly the same size both geographically and economically, both are predominently Slavic peoples, both have extensive land borders with the CIS and both are strategically well placed as locations for a missile defence system.
Politically speaking, Poland is exactly where many Ukrainians would like to be be. Poland can rage against the Russians with relative impunity knowing that EU and NATO membership renders them effectively immune from Russian military action in the short and medium term. The question is whether it is helpful.
Like it or not, the west has to live with Russia. If the EU can successfully source gas elsewhere, it will only change the economic relationship. Russia will still be there and it will remain immensely powerful. You do not, in my view, persuade people to come round to your way of thinking by demonising them. Consider for a moment the possibility that my original thesis was right - the Georgians miscalculated and overreacted to the build up of Russian forces in N.Ossetia and launched an ill advised offensive as a counterweight. The Russians then overreacted themselves, possibly with a view to totally destabilising Georgia but, more likely bringing SO and Abkhasia into Russian control. Neither side expected this to escalate beyond a 'little regional difficulty' and both have been taken by surprise at the scale of the global reaction. As a result, all sorts of conspiracy theories have come into play, many based on nothing more than anti-Russian sentiment or, worse still, paranoia.
If either side could wind the clock back to the beginning of August, I think we would see a very different outcome. But, as I have said before, we are where we are. Firstly, we have to ensure that there is no repeat of the Georgian fiasco. On the one hand, the west needs to be very certain should the regional unrest spread into Chechnya, Ingushetia or Moldova its 'hands are clean'. Any sense that western security services have sponsored or encouraged instability would be very damaging. Secondly, we have to make sure that any instability in the pro-western states of the region remains at a constitutional level and does not become confrontational on the ground. Here, I have Ukraine very much in mind.
If these conditions are met, it should be possible for Russian/western relations to revert to some degree of normality and dialogue - after a decent period - can resume. This is beginning to take on the character of feuding neighbours. The heads of the the families can sort out this out like adults providing the kids can be persuaded to shut up and behave themselves.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 @171:
The USSR 'burnt their fingers' in Afghanistan because the US supplied the (then) Mujaheddin with ample arms (including stinger missiles, etc.).
Ultimately, this contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union (a 'good thing'). It also led to the rise of the Taleban (a 'bad thing').
This time we'll give the Russian a free hand.
Complain about this comment
"Politically speaking, Poland is exactly where many Ukrainians would like to be be"
Geographically too. Most europeans don't appreciate that Stalin totally redrew europes borders, so much of eastern Ukraine became Russian, much of eastern Poland in turn became Ukrainian and Poland got part of eastern Germany in compensation.
The borders might have changed but the ethnicity of the people didn't which is precisely why we have south ossetia style mini-wars right across the borders of the former USSR.
Another thing we can 'thank' Uncle Iosef (last week voted the greatest ever Russian by the Russian people) for
Complain about this comment
Thank you all for the very interesting discussion we had, and let's just wait and see how everything turns out.
Complain about this comment
#173 "The USSR 'burnt their fingers' in Afghanistan because the US supplied the (then) Mujaheddin with ample arms (including stinger missiles, etc.).
Ultimately, this contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union (a 'good thing'). It also led to the rise of the Taleban (a 'bad thing')."
The Taliban only rose indirectly: the mujheddin we supplied were basically the Northern Alliance. After the Russians pulled out many of them turned in gangsters and robbed the Afghans blind. The Taliban were created by Mullah Omar (initially when his 20 religious students chased off a raiding party) to defend the people from warlords. Initially they were very popular. Unfortunately power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts absolutely and the taliban soon turned out as bad as the warlords they drove off.
Complain about this comment
Now would be a perfect time for the US to stab Europe in the back by walking out of NATO, pulling up stakes and leaving Europe to defend itself against Russia. Betrayal should get betrayal. The US can tell France and Germany to go to hell. Let's see how the EU's economy fares when the Germans have to spend their own money on arms. Meanwhile, the US can tell the Germans that if they want to be defended by a nuclear deterrent, they should build their own. Now there's a thought to send a chill down the spine of everyone from Marseilles to Moscow, a nuclear armed German Reich. If Iran can do it, why not the Germans?
Complain about this comment
Anti-Democrat Neocon stooge Mardell persists in referring to a "Russian Invasion". But the Russian troops have pulled-back to the OSCE-agreed buffer zone to protect the citizens of S Ossetia from further rocket attacks "in the name of democracy" by President Sucko.
Meanwhile, Mardell insists (as if he has some say in the matter?) that S Ossetians are supposed to remain a part of Georgia. Why? They don't speak Georgian. They can't read Georgian. They aren't Georgian. But it suits Mardell! That's why they need to remain under the Govt that shelled them!! :(
So who is taking democracy away? Russia? Or Mark Neocon Mardell and the United States that he serves in his weekly columns??
Complain about this comment
What utter hypocricy this reminds us Europe is all about. An American led invasion of Iraq which was entirely legal under the terms of the 1991 truce being violated countless times was condemned by Europe in the harshest terms yet when one European country invades another across internationally recognized borders on the transparent pretext of protecting its nationals and then annexes another country's territory the EU slinks away with a whimper. How convenient it is to rationalize lack of principle and caving in to expediency because of its shortsightedness in not finding alternative ways to meet its energy needs. How would it have rationalized it if that were not the case? Who could possibly take the EU or Europe seriously?
Complain about this comment
Reiner_Torheit @ #178
Your rant is somewhat abusive and unnecessarily insulting.
The Russians did invade Georgia on 8th August 2008. That is a fact.
Georgia was formed as a sovereign state on the breakup of the USSR and South Ossetia and Abkhazia were included within the territory of Georgia - Russia cannot unilaterally redraw the border because years later it thinks it should dispossess South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgian Territory.
Just try to be less insulting and more rational in your arguments then people might find your comments of more interest - as it stands your comments are somewhat stupid!
Complain about this comment
How funny it is to see the EU flat on its back flailing its arms and legs about as it mewls helplessly about Russian aggression. Time for the US to stay home. Of course Germany will shut up. They already got one taste of what life would be like without Russian gas, they don't need another lesson. Britain was considering unilateral nuclear disarmament only a short time ago. How'st that plan coming? How about Chirac's EU rapid reaction force. Will that be brought out to threaten the Russians with :-) And what about the rest of Olde Europe, Belgium and Luxembourg. They've been rather quiet lately? Perhaps Sarkozy can quickly sign a deal for the Mediteranian Union, bring Georgia and Ukraine into it and get north Africa to defend Europe from Russia. Or Israel. Isreal could probably get the job done...but why would they want to any more than the US would?
Complain about this comment
178-nameless soldier,
can you explain me please, what does 'GOVT' mean?
And who id the tiny president LILIputin?????????????
Complain about this comment
Don't be angry NAMELESS soldier,
you deserved this and much more I cannot tell you UNFORTUNATELY
Complain about this comment
Poor elengeo. It is hard conversing with people from a different culture you do not understand, especially when references are made to things you don't know anyting about. If you want to know what LILIputin means, I suggest you read the book "Gulliver's Travels" by Jonathan Swift. It's a very good and entertaining story. Rather puts things in perspective I'd say.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
Wityy! Yes, I appreciate.
Complain about this comment
#124 Menedemus
The BBC has more power to influence the way we are governed than my MP, and that is scary.
Just look at what is happening to our country! The main political parties are virtually identical. Is it a co-incidence that their policies mirror the PC agenda at the BBC?
The power of broadcast media (with 50% controlled by the BBC) means that politicians must tow the line otherwise they will get a mauling on national tv and radio.
This leaves a dangerous gap between the official parties and real people. A journalist giving us the benefit of their personal thoughts is systematic of this problem.
I happen to think that, by and large Mark Mardell has been quite balanced in his comments over time, especially considering the personal investment he and his family have made in the continued existence of the EU at Brussels. However, I did not vote for him just as I did not vote for the EU and many other left wing quangos that the BBC promotes.
What is most worrying is that a free media is vital to any democracy. However, if the people with the transmitters and microphones (and blogs) abuse the power they have, then someone in a future government may decide to take control, and that would be a disaster.
Complain about this comment
I think somebody has been playing with the complaints system... as one of my comments was removed, and as many times as I re-read it, I can not work out what's wrong with it, or which rules it breaks... the most controversial part was "bad English" in reference to a poster. This is while others are posting directly insulting statements about Poland and other countries, people... if I wanted to complain about every post that had something as bad or worse than what I wrote, maybe three quarters of entries in this blog would be removed. SILLY!
I think Mark may want to get better moderators here... because people are starting to abuse the system.
Complain about this comment
To ISeeAll #143
Did you ever think that the countries that were a part of the U.S.S.R. see Russia as a threat? With the weapons Russia has, its past and the recent incursion into Georgia, these countries have every right to determine for themselves if they want to be a neutral country or become a member of NATO. As a soverign nation its there choice. Just because a country is a member of NATO doesn't mean they can not be allies with Russia. If neighbors of the US has missles for defence on THEIR territory, so what? We have good relations with our neighbors. Maybe something Russia should learn. Oh..and for all the Russian paranoia of the US wanting to invade Russia...lol ! Start passing out the Prozac because apparently alot of you need it. Russia has nothing that the US wants...even resources. We've got plenty of our own that we've been sitting on for a long time.
To oceansapart #144
Do you know how many Russian posts that I have seen that spew anti-american vile? Even going so far as saying all American hoes were big,fat and lazy. I couldn't believe that comment was even posted.I have never seen 1 comment by a Russian that was positive towards Americans or even critical of there own governments actions.What is Putins Nashi org. teaching the youth? Nothing wrong with nationalism but who is it that they are saying are Russia's enemies? Isn't it muslim terrorists and America?Just when I thought we could actually be some sort of allies. Well... until Russia started helping Iran with its nuclear ambitions. Now I see the connection.Just hope Europe continues to keep Russia in check and hopefully it will thwart Russia imperalistic fantasies.
Complain about this comment
188. stovetop:
You said you have not read one comment from a Russian person that is critical of RF givernment or one that was positive towards America.
Try reading slower or do something different. I have seen plenty of comments on here that were from Russian people, were critical of RF government or its actions AND even have seen positive comments towards the US.
You speak in vile lies!
Complain about this comment
Oh and to add to the comment above I have seen many many negative comments towards the US from people that come from just about every country in the world! Why do you think that is?
I suspect it has someting to do with the actions of your government.
There is nothing wrong with American people but there are alot of things wrong with American government.
Complain about this comment
I speak in vile lies? HaHaHa Then prove me wrong.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS