- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 23,946
- Reaction score
- 16,536
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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
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, 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.
Yes, you hate russia too, we get it.
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.
It has the worlds largest or seconod largest economy,
..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.
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.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.
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?
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.
Currently their is no vast EU army
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.
...a worthless piece of paper that would be better used for toilet paper then to actually buy toilet paper
So you expect an Euro army to be used to wage war on euro member states?And EU interests aren't often the interests of member states. If they were, there would be no 'need' for a Euro Army.
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
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.
Russia is a hyperpower, so when we talk about ''are we ready to deal with russia'', im assuming, you mean with dialogue.
-- (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
Britain should have been running the economy better long before the crisis in 1992
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?