Are we ready to deal with Russia?

[Infinite Chaos]

Russia, France and Germany will talk European security and cooperation in the French city of Deauville on October 18-19.

Nicolas Sarkozy, Dmitry Medvedev and Angela Merkel will also discuss France's possible G8 and G20 presidency in 2011.
Voice of Russia

Little detail of the forthcoming talks is being released beyond that Russia under Medvedev appears to be looking for closer security, political and business ties to Europe however the ever present presence of Vladimir Putin looms in the background.

William Hague is on his way to Moscow for discussions and this will be followed by talks between Cameron and Medvedev.

What is the ultimate goal however? And could we ignore Russia?

Last one first - Russia supplies us with oil so we have to engage with it. Russia also remains a potent adversary if we ever came to conflict but do we construct some new security deal with Russia as she seems to want? I personally think the UK and much of europe should separate from the US (on amicable terms) and stand on our own two feet but swapping from ties to the US to ties to Russia will be a step too far.

What is Russia's ultimate goal?
Very difficult to tell - Medvedev seems to be coming out of Putin's shadow and Russia under him seems more self reflective and capable of thinking about constructive partnerships with countries in Europe. Certainly Russia (like everyone else) has watched China's huge expansion with interest and envy and probably would want to find its own way of copying the economic success there.

Personally, the ever present threat of a return by Putin (or people like him) shows that whatever steps we and others in Europe take, we must always be watchful. The affair over Alexander Litvinenko shows us the other face that can suddenly appear so quickly in dealings with Russia.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Some observations:


The Russians have always been different. They've had a very cut-up history so they probably feel entitled to act boorishly and think nobody matters but them - even their own people have fallen victim to that mentality.

If Europe is incapable of standing on its own two feet, it only has itself to blame. Wars, Globalism and outsourcing come to my mind Not to mention a mainland European arrogance which takes the form of both aloofness and a feeling that someone somewhere is screwing them over and not loving them. The USA are typical victims of that and the EU is a prime agent of that self-indulgence.


Yes, Russia 'has' our oil. It also sells us our gas and some coal. But who's to blame for that? What was left of the family silver was sold to the French, who now flog us our own electricity. Indeed, it was revealed in the papers recently that we're overcharged in times of recession just to cushion the bills of French consumers.

The Cold War is over but Russia still has been known to deploy its spies in the way it always did. That sexy one being swapped for an American spy in that trade-off a while ago is a case in point. If 'Europe' is work with Russia, security services must investigate if the Ivans are penetrating us the same as always.

 

[mikeey]

When it comes down to it,i will always support my friends from the United States of America,and the Scots or Brits will always back them to the hilt,we fight and die together,cant get better than that.

mikeey

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Some observations:


The Russians have always been different. They've had a very cut-up history so they probably feel entitled to act boorishly and think nobody matters but them - even their own people have fallen victim to that mentality.

Yes, you hate russia too, we get it.

Yes, Russia 'has' our oil. It also sells us our gas and some coal. But who's to blame for that? What was left of the family silver was sold to the French, who now flog us our own electricity. Indeed, it was revealed in the papers recently that we're overcharged in times of recession just to cushion the bills of French consumers.

Relation?

The Cold War is over but Russia still has been known to deploy its spies in the way it always did. That sexy one being swapped for an American spy in that trade-off a while ago is a case in point. If 'Europe' is work with Russia, security services must investigate if the Ivans are penetrating us the same as always.

The recent spy 'scandal' was a total joke with no traditional spying going on but people making connections in policy circles seeing what americans thought and how they do business, more indicative of the distance of russian society rather than their intent to 'deploy spies'.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Yes, you hate russia too, we get it.

How simplistic it must be in the left wing world, and rather miserable.

Point out a troubled history and that's 'hate'. Explain the beliefs of fundamentalists or far-left crackpots and that's 'hate'. Criticise the EU and that's 'hate'.


Turns out that by hurling such single-minded vitriol at people who think differently or independently, leftists are often the hateful ones. And when it spills over into riot, as it does at anti-EDL, BNP or G8 demos, they descend to the level they criticise in others.

 

[24107]

Russia is a hyperpower, so when we talk about ''are we ready to deal with russia'', im assuming, you mean with dialogue.

 

[cpwill]

Little detail of the forthcoming talks is being released beyond that Russia under Medvedev appears to be looking for closer security, political and business ties to Europe however the ever present presence of Vladimir Putin looms in the background.

William Hague is on his way to Moscow for discussions and this will be followed by talks between Cameron and Medvedev.

What is the ultimate goal however? And could we ignore Russia?

Last one first - Russia supplies us with oil so we have to engage with it. Russia also remains a potent adversary if we ever came to conflict but do we construct some new security deal with Russia as she seems to want? I personally think the UK and much of europe should separate from the US (on amicable terms) and stand on our own two feet but swapping from ties to the US to ties to Russia will be a step too far.

well, those are your options.

frankly, i foresee Russia taking increasing control of your foriegn policy as you collapse from the inside.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

We have no independent foreign policy.


Our new Euro-fuhrer van Rumpuy has last word in that now. And since the vacant Caroline Ashton was made our foreign affairs representative (over the head of the more experienced David Milliband), there isn't any real sway we can have in the distant court of the EU.

As things stand, we can do what we like unless the EU says otherwise. Which isn't really being able to do as we like.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

well, those are your options.

frankly, i foresee Russia taking increasing control of your foriegn policy as you collapse from the inside.

Russia will collapse long before the European nations will.

A declining industrial bases, a decrease in the ability to inovate in most fields but especially the military

I had thought Putin might be able to change things around in 2006-2007 but he has not done anything to expand Russia's economy past natural resources. In 10 years Russia will lose most of its influence in the Central asian states to China primarily and India to a lesser degree. It will only be able to pull OPEC type moves on Europe regarding foreign policy. It will not be able to even dream of attacking any mid size european state

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

As for Europe/ EU

It has the worlds largest or seconod largest economy, a population 3-4 times that of Russia, spends at least 3 times on the military then what Russia does, has far more modern tanks in the Leapord 2, Leclerc, and Challenger (Leapord being the best) a modern airforce that works, a reasonable navy that actually can go to sea on a regular basis.

It is far more powerfull as a block then Russia, and while they cant invade russia, neither can russia invade them

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

It has the worlds largest or seconod largest economy,

But is it all that stable? The one-size-fits-all Eurozone exchange rate makes the single currency top-heavy from the word go. Even during the boom years it was applauded if it could stagger about unaided.

..spends at least 3 times on the military then what Russia does, has far more modern tanks in the Leapord 2, Leclerc, and Challenger (Leapord being the best) a modern airforce that works, a reasonable navy that actually can go to sea on a regular basis.

There's no real question of Russia moving in. As Europeans say, it just isn't politik. And it's always been a dodged question (even by self-appointed EU brainbox PeteEU) as to what this vast EU Army will be used for. Not all that sure it's a straight defence army with all the bits and pieces for offensive action it has.

Where's it going to invade? Where's it going to meddle? And, more importantly, why?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

But is it all that stable? The one-size-fits-all Eurozone exchange rate makes the single currency top-heavy from the word go. Even during the boom years it was applauded if it could stagger about unaided.

No more or less stable then the US dollar, remember the US is a large territory with a large economy that does not perform well in all areas, Michigan can be sinking while New Mexico is doing well. The problem with Greece, Spain etc was not and is not the Euro but poor governance.

There's no real question of Russia moving in. As Europeans say, it just isn't politik. And it's always been a dodged question (even by self-appointed EU brainbox PeteEU) as to what this vast EU Army will be used for. Not all that sure it's a straight defence army with all the bits and pieces for offensive action it has.

Where's it going to invade? Where's it going to meddle? And, more importantly, why?

Currently their is no vast EU army, and I doubt there will be within 20 years. At most there will be a force of about 20 000 for rapid deployment issues

 

[ric27]

Little detail of the forthcoming talks is being released beyond that Russia under Medvedev appears to be looking for closer security, political and business ties to Europe however the ever present presence of Vladimir Putin looms in the background.

William Hague is on his way to Moscow for discussions and this will be followed by talks between Cameron and Medvedev.

What is the ultimate goal however? And could we ignore Russia?

Last one first - Russia supplies us with oil so we have to engage with it. Russia also remains a potent adversary if we ever came to conflict but do we construct some new security deal with Russia as she seems to want? I personally think the UK and much of europe should separate from the US (on amicable terms) and stand on our own two feet but swapping from ties to the US to ties to Russia will be a step too far.

What is Russia's ultimate goal?
Very difficult to tell - Medvedev seems to be coming out of Putin's shadow and Russia under him seems more self reflective and capable of thinking about constructive partnerships with countries in Europe. Certainly Russia (like everyone else) has watched China's huge expansion with interest and envy and probably would want to find its own way of copying the economic success there.

Personally, the ever present threat of a return by Putin (or people like him) shows that whatever steps we and others in Europe take, we must always be watchful. The affair over Alexander Litvinenko shows us the other face that can suddenly appear so quickly in dealings with Russia.

There is no such thing as being Russia's friend or neighbor. You're either a vassal state or an enemy.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

America may be large and have plenty of states but it is also a cohesive nation. Europe is a continent of ancient nations which were forced together to act in ways they were never supposed to do.

The Euro, EU and all the rest of it were the products of bad governance.

Currently their is no vast EU army

Then what was all that grandstanding about then? And with an EU Army already in development, nobody tells us exactly why the EU needs to send troops about the world without US or UN backup.


Blueprint for EU army to be agreed - Telegraph

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

America may be large and have plenty of states but it is also a cohesive nation. Europe is a continent of ancient nations which were forced together to act in ways they were never supposed to do.

The Euro, EU and all the rest of it were the products of bad governance.





Then what was all that grandstanding about then? And with an EU Army already in development, nobody tells us exactly why the EU needs to send troops about the world without US or UN backup.


Blueprint for EU army to be agreed - Telegraph

Perhaps to protect EU interests that are not the interests of the US.


The euro is perfectly fine, especially if it prevents moronic central bankers under political pressure from printing money (qualitative easing) that will cause periods of high if not hyper inflation as is being done in the UK, the US and to a lesser degree Japan. With the euro being independant of any singular nation it can do its job and keep the euro a stable store of value rather then turn it into a worthless piece of paper that would be better used for toilet paper then to actually buy toilet paper

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Perhaps to protect EU interests that are not the interests of the US.

And EU interests aren't often the interests of member states. If they were, there would be no 'need' for a Euro Army.

...a worthless piece of paper that would be better used for toilet paper then to actually buy toilet paper

The Euro's pretty much that anyway. As I say, a one-size-fits-all exchange rate handicaps it from the start because Central Bankers spend more time wondering which setting will damage individual Eurozone states less.

And what's more, rather than ensure stability through being out of the hands of politicians (it was politicians who created it), the Eurozone amplifies any schisms:

BBC News - Bank of England warns of eurozone risk to UK banks

EU austerity policies risk civil war in Greece

Eurasia Risk Watch :: Greece, Eurozone: Risk Is Augmenting :: February :: 2010

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

And EU interests aren't often the interests of member states. If they were, there would be no 'need' for a Euro Army.

So you expect an Euro army to be used to wage war on euro member states?

The Euro's pretty much that anyway. As I say, a one-size-fits-all exchange rate handicaps it from the start because Central Bankers spend more time wondering which setting will damage individual Eurozone states less.

And what's more, rather than ensure stability through being out of the hands of politicians (it was politicians who created it), the Eurozone amplifies any schisms:

BBC News - Bank of England warns of eurozone risk to UK banks

EU austerity policies risk civil war in Greece

Eurasia Risk Watch :: Greece, Eurozone: Risk Is Augmenting :: February :: 2010

Greece is collapsing because the idiotic government gave away to much and borrowed too much and now has trouble paying it back, that is not the fault of the euro but of the greek government and its citizens for electing people to give them more thing on borrowed money. Does greece face civil war most definately, but it is not because of the euro

As for austerity, greece does not have much in the way of options, it defaults on its debt and faces austerity and loss of any international assets. or it pays its debts and faces austerity.

The euro being dominated by Germany is going to remain a relatively stable currency one that will not go the route of hyper inflation as germans have a bad history with such things in the past

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

So you expect an Euro army to be used to wage war on euro member states?

No. Used to 'keep order' one fine day when the EU's tension-held structure crushes it down and the people revolt, GDR-style. But used to wage war for political reasons, possibly to drive wedges between other organisations like the UN, possibly to stop America from launching its own offensives or counter-attacks for its own business.


And with a Euro dominated by Germany, the single currency will probably work best for Germany. So as it always was. When Britain begged the Germans to lower interest rates against their own interests in 1992, they refused. As a result, the British economy crashed and we were obliged to leave the ERM.

Sadly, for too many politicians, the bitter lesson for John Major at that time was all too quickly ignored.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

No. Used to 'keep order' one fine day when the EU's tension-held structure crushes it down and the people revolt, GDR-style. But used to wage war for political reasons, possibly to drive wedges between other organisations like the UN, possibly to stop America from launching its own offensives or counter-attacks for its own business.


And with a Euro dominated by Germany, the single currency will probably work best for Germany. So as it always was. When Britain begged the Germans to lower interest rates against their own interests in 1992, they refused. As a result, the British economy crashed and we were obliged to leave the ERM.

Sadly, for too many politicians, the bitter lesson for John Major at that time was all too quickly ignored.

Britain was being run by morons who were spending to much, and suffered a fate they deserved for doing so, blaming the Germans for not wanting to bailout Britain or Greece is a shifting the blame for the people who deserve it to those who do not. Britain should have been running the economy better long before the crisis in 1992, rather then beg Germany who does tend to run their economy well over the long term for help

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Russia is a hyperpower, so when we talk about ''are we ready to deal with russia'', im assuming, you mean with dialogue.

Yes, I do. There are forthcoming talks between Russia, Germany and France and our Govt has apparently signalled that relations have improved. I personally don't think we should be in full discussions just yet as the old foe remains who it is and Putin (or his like) could easily return to power and the threats and hostility return. I don't believe Russia has changed enough yet.

-- (Leapord being the best)

I know many who'd still rather go to battle in a Challenger than a Leopard - we developed the type of armour that the Germans and Americans now use on their tanks.

-- a modern airforce that works, a reasonable navy that actually can go to sea on a regular basis.

It is far more powerfull as a block then Russia, and while they cant invade russia, neither can russia invade them

We don't operate as a block, there have been investigations into agreements but they're rarely permanent agreements.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Britain should have been running the economy better long before the crisis in 1992

And we would have been able to, had the morons you spoke of not locked us into a system where someone else's exchange rate caused our economy to overheat.

Ironically, in the time it took for our economy to bounce back to blooming health, New Labour were elected to inherit it.

As you say, being in the ERM gave the post-Thatcher Government the fate it deserved.